Allandavid
Well-Known Member
- Dec 30, 2016
- 8,056
- 6,929
- 70
- Country
- Australia
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
Upvote
0
GOP Senators vote that Overwhelming Evidence should be more than sufficient
- Thread starter BobRyan
- Start date
No I don't. I'd never stoop to posting lame far-right misinformation like this. I mean, the evidence shows that this kind of propaganda is coming from Russian intelligence and is designed to dupe people into believing falsehoods in an attempt to destabilize our government. I have way more integrity that to repeat that sort of nonsense on a public forum.
But thanks for asking.
Upvote
0
- May 28, 2015
- 14,603
- 7,108
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Constitution
Sounds like a new conspiracy theory. Sondland is just a propagandist being led by Russian intelligence to dupe people into believing falsehoods.
Now that is a hoot.....
Upvote
0
Not to anyone who is even marginally aware of reality. Even the GOP admits it :
Senate Intel's newest Russia report undermines pro-Trump conspiracy theories
https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Report_Volume1.pdf
https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Report_Volume2.pdf
Upvote
0
- Nov 21, 2008
- 51,352
- 10,607
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- SDA
- Marital Status
- Married
I find that interesting as well.
check out that video in the OP -- the summation starting at about 18:20 is very informative.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
No need. I know it also regurgitates the "no evidence" claims - and those have been pretty thoroughly debunked through the course of the thread.
Upvote
0
- Nov 21, 2008
- 51,352
- 10,607
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- SDA
- Marital Status
- Married
Clearly you have not read the OP recently
That's ok - you have free will... can ignore the evidence as you choose. But that list of "what you were not told" is pretty impressive to the rest of us.
Upvote
0
Interesting how instead of explaining what it is from the OP that is so vital to the discussion you've instead created a whole post about me personally. Kinda detracts from the messaging that the OP is the subject here.Clearly you have not read the OP recently
That's ok - you have free will... can ignore the evidence as you choose. But that list of "what you were not told" is pretty impressive to the rest of us.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
- Nov 21, 2008
- 51,352
- 10,607
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- SDA
- Marital Status
- Married
So then we go directly to the prosecution's own star witnesses to see if they are witnessing to their own "imagination" or actual policy direction given to them by the President.
See the OP
Turns out Sondland completely destroys the prosecution's case and he is THEIR witness.
Upvote
0
stevil
Godless and without morals
Sure, that would make sense. Ask witnesses questions, cross examine them, etc
I like where you are going with this.
I can think of several people close to the action that are likely to have relevant testimony to offer.
Get them into the Senate trial, put them under oath and get information and accounts from them.
The prosecution have many, many witnesses. Some who provided testimony and some who were blocked by The Accused from giving testimony.
Sondland's testimony was extremely damning of Trump and Guiliani and certainly points to other people whom should also be compelled to testify.
Upvote
0
- Nov 21, 2008
- 51,352
- 10,607
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- SDA
- Marital Status
- Married
So then we go directly to the prosecution's own star witnesses to see if they are witnessing to their own "imagination" or actual policy direction given to them by the President.
See the OP
note - take a look at 49:55 min:sec in that video... to 53:10 for "the two people" that actually testified and said they spoke directly to the president about quid pro quo topic with Ukraine and the aid to be given to Ukraine.
or 51:05 to 53:10 if you prefer. A little over 2 minutes for those interested in the facts at that level.
Turns out Sondland completely destroys the prosecution's case and he is THEIR witness.
It is one thing to destroy the prosecution's case using the defense' witness or a cross exam of the prosecution's witness. . but this is the prosecution's own video of their own witness that is destroying their case. And this is someone who has direct conversation with the President and is in the chain of command to carry out the policy of the President when it comes to the Ukraine.
Indeed - so did the house managers - and they put those direct contact witnesses on record as in the case of Sondland. Not just direct contact but direct responsibility for working with the Ukrane leadership.
Sondland's testimony is that he put the question to the president point blank about getting the Ukraine to do something in order to get the aid. Sondland says the President said "I want nothing". And when asked pointedly to come out with at least something that would implicate the President Sondland said he (Sondland) made his own statements against the President based on his own speculation/inference/imagination but had no actual statement from the President saying the things that he was claiming. As we see him saying in that short 2 minute section -- 51:05 to 53:10
that might seem like a "damning statement" against the President -- but the details seen in that video do not support that being such a good case for the prosecution.
See the OP
note - take a look at 49:55 min:sec in that video... to 53:10 for "the two people" that actually testified and said they spoke directly to the president about quid pro quo topic with Ukraine and the aid to be given to Ukraine.
or 51:05 to 53:10 if you prefer. A little over 2 minutes for those interested in the facts at that level.
Turns out Sondland completely destroys the prosecution's case and he is THEIR witness.
It is one thing to destroy the prosecution's case using the defense' witness or a cross exam of the prosecution's witness. . but this is the prosecution's own video of their own witness that is destroying their case. And this is someone who has direct conversation with the President and is in the chain of command to carry out the policy of the President when it comes to the Ukraine.
Indeed - so did the house managers - and they put those direct contact witnesses on record as in the case of Sondland. Not just direct contact but direct responsibility for working with the Ukrane leadership.
Sondland's testimony is that he put the question to the president point blank about getting the Ukraine to do something in order to get the aid. Sondland says the President said "I want nothing". And when asked pointedly to come out with at least something that would implicate the President Sondland said he (Sondland) made his own statements against the President based on his own speculation/inference/imagination but had no actual statement from the President saying the things that he was claiming. As we see him saying in that short 2 minute section -- 51:05 to 53:10
that might seem like a "damning statement" against the President -- but the details seen in that video do not support that being such a good case for the prosecution.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
stevil
Godless and without morals
The problem with this narrative is that this conversation happened AFTER Trump had been caught, and once he had started his cover up.
Once the Whistleblower report was made, Trump was aware of it quickly as it was passed to the White House. From that point on, the "Shake down" was no longer on the table. Trump changed his tune and his team stopped putting pressure on Ukraine.
Before that, was an entirely different story. For months, Guiliani had become a shadow government, putting immense pressure on Ukraine, he was directing the USA's officials, he was working with them in drafting statements and he was advising everyone that aid would be held until an announcement on the Bidens was made. He even ensured the Ukraine ambassador was removed as she was not going along with it. When the officials questioned Trump, Trump told them to talk to Rudy. Rudy had delegated authority from Trump. Trump had said that Rudy knew what was to happen and that he and Rudy were aligned.
Correct. Rudy was calling the shots and everyone was being directed by Trump to talk to Rudy. It was entirely reasonable to conclude that what Rudy was telling people, was aligned with Trump's wishes.
Rudy should be made to testify and so should Trump.
It would be interesting to here them both try to explain this situation in a consistent and coherent manner.
No-one has yet been able to explain it in a way that seems reasonable and not implicating Trump, or throwing Rudy under the bus.
Upvote
0
- Nov 21, 2008
- 51,352
- 10,607
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- SDA
- Marital Status
- Married
It is from the only two direct witnesses that had anything to do with implementing Trump's Policy with the Ukraine and also spoke directly to the president. The idea that all those other people were getting their info from Sondland -- and yet Sondland never spoke to the president until Sept after all the accusations (generated by Sondland before that) had gotten out - is not helping the prosecution.
The phone call wb - usefulness was completely deleted once we all had the transcript and once again saw that nothing on it says that aid is being withheld from Ukraine until they do an investigation. At that point the WB testimony is only a liability for the House so it is still kept "secret from the Senate" by the House to this very day.
IF that aid-heldup-until-investigation info was on the transcript you would not need Sondland at all. you need Sondland because he is "the source" for several of the other "witnesses" making this claim before Sondland actually speaks directly to the President on that topic.
If you look at the manager's witnesses and timeline in that video you see that they say Ukraine had no info at all about a trade/exchange/pressure regarding aid dependent on the investigation until the news in the US announces it in late August early September and as soon as they found out about it all the House witnesses testified that the Ukraine began to immediately contact people in the US and ask about it. Whatever story is being ginned up for Guilliani -- and pressure on the Ukraine - it never makes it to the Ukraine until September after the article was published in the US about the aid.
We are left with "who was thinking what..."
and also "who was planning what.."
That never actually pans out -- because none of it makes it to the Ukraine according to the witnesses the House has on record for all to see as "overwhelming evidence" for the Senate.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
stevil
Godless and without morals
It is a very weird scenario indeed.
So were all these people negligent and got the wrong idea about what Trump wanted, and then they went off and did a horrible pressure campaign on the president of Ukraine. If this is the case, then they should all be fired. (including Rudy)
However, none of these people had the ability to put a hold on the aid. And yet, the aid was held up. (is this yet another person that got Trump's intent incorrect?
There are so many, so many people that got this narrative, they can't all have got the narritive incorrect, but the same as each other, unless they were coordinated in some way. (also how do we account for Trump's call where he talks to Zelenski and tells him to talk to Rudy?)
RUDY is the answer, and many times people that sought clarification from Trump, were told by Trump to talk to Rudy. This makes Rudy the highest delegated authority, the orchestrator of the Ukraine policy.
These two people (Rudy and Trump) definitely should testify and explain what was going on, and their stories better match up.
The whistleblower report wasn't just about the phone call.
"I'd like you to do us a favor though..."
Nonsense. The WB testimony was given to the White house before The House got it. The WB testimony has been made public and published on various media outlets.
The shakedown of the Ukraine occured over months, it wasn't just down to one phone call.
The timeline is very important. I don't have time to research and lay it all out right now. But I will do this, unless someone else beats me to it.
Upvote
0
stevil
Godless and without morals
Pentagon announces plans "to provide $250 million to Ukraine - June 18th
Jennifer Williams stated that aid was put on hold on this day - July 3rd
Catherine Croft stated that the aid hold was announced in a sub-Policy Coordination Committee video conference - July 18th
Mark Sandy stated that Department of Defence were notified of the hold- July 19th
Trump's phone call with Zelenski - July 25th
Mark Sandy signs the first document making the hold official and valid through Aug. 5 - July 25th
Laura Cooper stated State Department receives two emails from Ukraine's embassy in Washington. "The second email was received July 25 at 4:25 p.m. That email said the Hill knows about the [Foreign Military Financing] situation to an extent and so does the Ukrainian embassy." - July 25th
Whistleblower complaint made - mid August
Politico scoops a previously unreported story: that the Trump administration is "slow-walking $250 million in military assistance to Ukraine." - August 28th
Trump claims to have had call with Sondland stating he wants no Quip Pro Quo - September 5th
Hold on aid is released. - September 11th
Whistleblower complaint made public - mid September
House launches formal Impeachment enquiry - September 24th
Mark Sandy stated that $35 million in funds do not get spent in time to meet the deadline. - Sept 30th
Last edited:
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
- Nov 21, 2008
- 51,352
- 10,607
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- SDA
- Marital Status
- Married
Sondland states in testimony to the house managers - that Trump told him that he wanted no quid pro quo .. in fact wanted 'nothing' .
Ukraine starts asking U.S. contacts about aid being withheld on August 29 after the Politico article.
Aid released on Sept 11 without Ukraine investigating anything but whether or not aid was withheld.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
