Mr. Vindman and Sondland are no longer at the Whitehouse.

[tulc]

Sorry but I'd say the first sign of acting like an adult would be to set the example of one. That starts by not using cute little mockery statements calling the President of the United States poor little Trumpie. Now does that mean I approve of the President doing somewhat the same to people? No I don't. But one has no place criticizing others for not acting like an adult when they don't do so either.

...I'm wondering if the irony of this post was noticed? Because it definitely buried the needle on my irony meter.

tulc(seriously!)

 

[TLK Valentine]

Don’t blame Trump is was lost eight years before he came. Just sounded better.

Oh, I'm not blaming Donald -- I never expected him to bring any.

Meanwhile, all things considered, Vindman's pretty lucky to end up wherever he does.

Spicer ended up on Dancing With the Stars, Scaramucci couldn't rate as a genuine HouseGuest on Celebrity Big Brother, Huckabee-Sanders made a fool of herself making fun of Biden's stutter (you'd think she'd know only Donald can get away with mocking a disability), and Cohen, Gates, Manafort, Flynn, Popadopalous, and Stone are all in prison.

Vindman might end up posted somewhere in the sticks, but at least he can hold his head up and say, "At least I'm not one of those guys.."

 

[grasping the after wind]

Your reluctance to back up your claim shows it was a fabrication.

If one wants to ask for another to back up a claim made by that person one asks for evidence to a back up the claim. If one instead asks "when did they do that?" one will get the answer to that question rather than an answer about some claim. You, much like the two gentlemen in question, have jumped to a conclusion i.e. that I was somehow reluctant to back up a claim, unless you are a mind reader , which I now have clear evidence you are not, you could not possibly know whether I am reluctant to do anything or not. The fact is I was extremely happy and delighted to answer the actual question you posed. If you actually want me to back up some claim I made then let me know what claim it is you want me to back up rather than asking me to give you a timeline of someone's thought processes which I have no knowledge of. BTW there was more to my post than the amount you quoted. Was there some reason you decided to censor a part of it?

 

[hislegacy]

...I'm wondering if the irony of this post was noticed? Because it definitely buried the needle on my irony meter.

tulc(seriously!)

...your irony meter never posts to the left, does it?

hislegacy. (Just pointing something interesting out)

 

[tulc]

...your irony meter never posts to the left, does it?

hislegacy. (Just pointing something interesting out)

That might be because most meters with those sorts of gauges tend to be read from left to right?
tulc(hopes that helps)

 

[essentialsaltes]

You are being disingenuous again. He later showed he had no evidence or actual knowledge of such a thing.

You are being mistaken again. He had texts and emails from his colleagues within the Trump Administration and the Zelensky Administration. Not to mention the direct statements from Giuliani.

SONDLAND: Fourth, as I testified previously -- as I testified previously, Mr. Giuliani's requests were a quid pro quo for arranging a White House visit for President Zelensky. Mr. Giuliani demanded that Ukraine make a public statement announcing the investigations of the 2016 election/DNC server and Burisma.
...
SONDLAND: Well what I'm trying to do today is to use the limited information I have to be as forthcoming as possible with you and the rest of the committee and as these recollections have been refreshed by subsequent testimony, by some texts and e-mails that I've now had access to, I think I've filled in a lot of blanks.
...
SONDLAND: I've been very clear as to when I was presuming and I was presuming on the aid. On the other things, Mr. Castor, I did have some texts that I - I read from. So when it comes to those, I'll rely on those texts because I don't have any reason to believe that those texts were, you know, falsely sent or that there's some subterfuge there. They are what they are, they say what they say.
...
SONDLAND: Here is my exact quote from that e-mail: "I talked to Zelensky just now. He is prepared to receive POTUS' call. Will assure him that he intends to run a fully transparent investigation and will 'turn over every stone.' He would greatly appreciate a call prior to Sunday so that he can put out some media about a 'friendly and productive call' (no details) prior to Ukraine election on Sunday."
...
Everyone was in the loop. It was no secret. Everyone was informed via e-mail on July 19th, days before the presidential call. As I communicated to the team, I told President Zelensky in advance that assurances to "run a fully transparent investigation" and "turn over every stone" were necessary in this call with President Trump.
...
On August 10th, the next day, Mr. Yermak texted me. Once we have a date -- which is a date for the White House meeting -- we will call for a press briefing announcing upcoming visit and outlining vision for the reboot of the U.S.-Ukraine relationship, including among other things Burisma and election meddling in investigations.
...
With the subject Ukraine, I wrote, Mike -- referring to Mike Pompeo -- Kurt and I negotiated a statement from Zelensky to be delivered for our review in a day or two. The contents will hopefully make the boss happy enough -- the boss being the president -- to authorize an invitation. Zelensky plans to have a big presser -- press conference -- on the openness subject, including specifics, next week.

Sondland was not just aware of the quid pro quo, he was actively working with both sides to set up the quid and the quo.

 

[stevil]

Fair enough but let's not hear any more whining that they were walked out. We'll see what happens in November.

It's not whining.
It is fair criticism.

It is concerning in a free world democracy when a leader removes someone for testifying the truth in a situation where business ethics and abuse of power are in question.
It is even more concerning in a free world democracy when a leader removes someone for being another person's brother.
You remove all the people that are willing to speak up when business ethics are violated, or you suppress them through fear of losing their jobs and fear of losing their family members jobs, then you no longer have a free world Democracy.

This stuff goes on in China, North Korea and Russia.
It doesn't go on in New Zealand, Australia, Canada, UK, and other developed free world democracies.
USA folk ought to have their eyes open and be very weary as to the direction your country is going in.

 

[TLK Valentine]

This stuff goes on in China, North Korea and Russia.
It doesn't go on in New Zealand, Australia, Canada, UK, and other developed free world democracies.
USA folk ought to have their eyes open and be very weary as to the direction your country is going in.

In all fairness, in China, North Korea, Russia, Saudi Arabia, etc... these people tend to simply disappear altogether.

Donald has expressed his admiration for these nations and their Glorious leaders in the past... let's hope he doesn't pick up any advice.

 

[rjs330]

You are being mistaken again. He had texts and emails from his colleagues within the Trump Administration and the Zelensky Administration. Not to mention the direct statements from Giuliani.

SONDLAND: Fourth, as I testified previously -- as I testified previously, Mr. Giuliani's requests were a quid pro quo for arranging a White House visit for President Zelensky. Mr. Giuliani demanded that Ukraine make a public statement announcing the investigations of the 2016 election/DNC server and Burisma.
...
SONDLAND: Well what I'm trying to do today is to use the limited information I have to be as forthcoming as possible with you and the rest of the committee and as these recollections have been refreshed by subsequent testimony, by some texts and e-mails that I've now had access to, I think I've filled in a lot of blanks.
...
SONDLAND: I've been very clear as to when I was presuming and I was presuming on the aid. On the other things, Mr. Castor, I did have some texts that I - I read from. So when it comes to those, I'll rely on those texts because I don't have any reason to believe that those texts were, you know, falsely sent or that there's some subterfuge there. They are what they are, they say what they say.
...
SONDLAND: Here is my exact quote from that e-mail: "I talked to Zelensky just now. He is prepared to receive POTUS' call. Will assure him that he intends to run a fully transparent investigation and will 'turn over every stone.' He would greatly appreciate a call prior to Sunday so that he can put out some media about a 'friendly and productive call' (no details) prior to Ukraine election on Sunday."
...
Everyone was in the loop. It was no secret. Everyone was informed via e-mail on July 19th, days before the presidential call. As I communicated to the team, I told President Zelensky in advance that assurances to "run a fully transparent investigation" and "turn over every stone" were necessary in this call with President Trump.
...
On August 10th, the next day, Mr. Yermak texted me. Once we have a date -- which is a date for the White House meeting -- we will call for a press briefing announcing upcoming visit and outlining vision for the reboot of the U.S.-Ukraine relationship, including among other things Burisma and election meddling in investigations.
...
With the subject Ukraine, I wrote, Mike -- referring to Mike Pompeo -- Kurt and I negotiated a statement from Zelensky to be delivered for our review in a day or two. The contents will hopefully make the boss happy enough -- the boss being the president -- to authorize an invitation. Zelensky plans to have a big presser -- press conference -- on the openness subject, including specifics, next week.

Sondland was not just aware of the quid pro quo, he was actively working with both sides to set up the quid and the quo.

So he WAS pressuming. Your being disingenuous. He admitted to presuming. We all KNOW about the requested investigation. That's no big deal. What Sondland presumed is what's at point here. To be clear we are talking about the withholding of aid here, not a Whitehouse meeting that Guilliani was dealing with.

 

[hislegacy]

In all fairness, in China, North Korea, Russia, Saudi Arabia, etc... these people tend to simply disappear altogether.

QFT - thank you

Donald has expressed his admiration for these nations and their Glorious leaders in the past... let's hope he doesn't pick up any advice.

Just an example: If you ask me, I honestly have an admiration for you and most of your posts. In general they are thoughtful and make me think - I appreciate that about you (I am not being sarcastic nor joking, I really do), However, that admiration aside - I don't think I would ever take advice from you, we are too far apart in core values.

It might be possibly the same with the President an world leaders - he compliments strength, it doesn't mean he follows them.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Just an example: If you ask me, I honestly have an admiration for you and most of your posts. In general they are thoughtful and make me think - I appreciate that about you (I am not being sarcastic nor joking, I really do), However, that admiration aside - I don't think I would ever take advice from you, we are too far apart in core values.

I would hope that would depend on what the topic is: My doctor is a devout Muslim, and I'm obviously... not. But when he tells me what I have to do in order to keep my cholesterol down (I've got a family history), religion doesn't enter into it.

In my spare time, I'm a mediocre blues harmonica player; I hope someday to be a tolerable one. I've found an excellent instructor with an awesome Youtube channel full of great tips and tricks. I followed him on Facebook and discovered he's also a diehard Donald supporter. Well, shucks... but he still plays a mean harmonica; no sense ignoring what he has to say about what we do agree on.

According to Donald's (first) ex-wife, he kept a book of Hitler's collected speeches, My New Order, by the bedside. Unlike most of Donald's detractors, this, in and of itself, didn't bother me. Say what you will about ol' Adolf, but the man was a gifted public speaker -- If the subject is the method, not the message, one can learn... even from him. Anyone who wants to learn from history is doing themselves a disservice by ignoring what they can learn from its villains as well as its heroes.

TL; DR --The point is, core values or not, sometimes we consult the experts.

It might be possibly the same with the President an world leaders - he compliments strength, it doesn't mean he follows them.

Donald doesn't just compliment strength -- he covets it. He's built his entire public image around projecting it... as a businessman, that was done via displays of wealth and its trappings. So what are Donald's core values... really? What has he spent his entire life in pursuit of?

Money, fame, and the glorification of the single most important person in his life: himself.

Now that's he's president, "strength" means something else entirely -- he's gotten a taste of real power and all it entails: all of the above, as well as throngs of adoring fans, retribution for any and all (real or imagined) past slights against him, and the power of life and death -- well... he, too, might look to the experts... and keep it.

 

[hislegacy]

I would hope that would depend on what the topic is: My doctor is a devout Muslim, and I'm obviously... not. But when he tells me what I have to do in order to keep my cholesterol down (I've got a family history), religion doesn't enter into it.

In my spare time, I'm a mediocre blues harmonica player; I hope someday to be a tolerable one. I've found an excellent instructor with an awesome Youtube channel full of great tips and tricks. I followed him on Facebook and discovered he's also a diehard Donald supporter. Well, shucks... but he still plays a mean harmonica; no sense ignoring what he has to say about what we do agree on.

According to Donald's (first) ex-wife, he kept a book of Hitler's collected speeches, My New Order, by the bedside. Unlike most of Donald's detractors, this, in and of itself, didn't bother me. Say what you will about ol' Adolf, but the man was a gifted public speaker -- If the subject is the method, not the message, one can learn... even from him. Anyone who wants to learn from history is doing themselves a disservice by ignoring what they can learn from its villains as well as its heroes.

TL; DR --The point is, core values or not, sometimes we consult the experts.




Donald doesn't just compliment strength -- he covets it. He's built his entire public image around projecting it... as a businessman, that was done via displays of wealth and its trappings. So what are Donald's core values... really? What has he spent his entire life in pursuit of?

Money, fame, and the glorification of the single most important person in his life: himself.

Now that's he's president, "strength" means something else entirely -- he's gotten a taste of real power and all it entails: all of the above, as well as throngs of adoring fans, retribution for any and all (real or imagined) past slights against him, and the power of life and death -- well... he, too, might look to the experts... and keep it.

our opinions disagree.

 

[TLK Valentine]

our opinions disagree.

I would expect no less.

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

The only people, that should have been escorted out of the white house is Trump, his kids and possibly Pence. And all the people ,that knew Trump was guilty, but acquitted.

 

[TLK Valentine]

The only people, that should have been escorted out of the white house is Trump, his kids and possibly Pence. And all the people ,that knew Trump was guilty, but acquitted.

It'll be our job to escort them out in November... sadly, it's not going to happen.

 

[essentialsaltes]

So he WAS pressuming.

"on the aid".

Your being disingenuous.

Your mistaken.

He admitted to presuming.

"on the aid".

To be clear we are talking about the withholding of aid here, not a Whitehouse meeting

Let me refresh your memory about how your most recent mistake started. I know what I was and am talking about.

essentialsaltes said: ↑
It did no such thing. Sondland's opening statement was emphatic that, with regards to a White House meeting, there was a quid pro quo.

rjs330: You're being disingenuous here.

 

[Belk]

I don't know that the brother did anything. Reassignment is not the same as being fired. One doesn't have to have done anything negative to be reassigned. However, in these tribalistic times it is probably wise to close the door against a relative having the opportunity to seek revenge for a perceived slight to another family member. Placing the brother in a position that does not afford for such an opportunity is simply a reasonable precaution. In any event having people around one that have publicly voiced opposition to the policies you advocate is most likely foolish.

I see. So we are on to guilt by association now?

 

[rjs330]

"on the aid".



Your mistaken.



"on the aid".



Let me refresh your memory about how your most recent mistake started. I know what I was and am talking about.

essentialsaltes said: ↑
It did no such thing. Sondland's opening statement was emphatic that, with regards to a White House meeting, there was a quid pro quo.

rjs330: You're being disingenuous here.

Okay, let's call it a misunderstanding then. I didn't read your post as clearly as I should have. Everytime people bring up this topic they talk about the aid being quid pro quo. Not a meeting. So that's what I thought you were referring to. When someone reads posts and 99.8% of them referr to the aid it's a natural thought.

So I apologise for not reading your post clearly.

 

[rjs330]

So to be clear here, Guilliani talked about a meeting with the Whitehouse being contingent with announcement of an investigation.

My answer to that is the same. So?
I'm going to assume here that it is exactly what the president directed Guilliani to say. Despite the fact that the president told Sondland he didn't want quid pro quo.

I still could care less. The president was still concerned over corruption. He was still concerned that Zelinski still had people around him that had been involved in it. He said that in the phone call. He was also concerned that Biden had been involved in corruption when demanding the prosecutor get fired or the Ukraine wouldn't get the billion dollars. The prosecutor was looking into Burisma a company that was paying his son a LOT of money.

I think an investigation into that is just as warranted as the investigation into Trump. Both are warranted.

I think the president was well within his rights to request an in vestigation. And within his rights to say that Ukraine doesn't get to meet with him until they do. Even though that never happened.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Okay, let's call it a misunderstanding then. I didn't read your post as clearly as I should have. Everytime people bring up this topic they talk about the aid being quid pro quo. Not a meeting. So that's what I thought you were referring to. When someone reads posts and 99.8% of them referr to the aid it's a natural thought.

So I apologise for not reading your post clearly.

OK, great. So we've established that for the White House meeting, Sondland not only testified that there was a quid pro quo that he knew of, of his own knowledge, and supported by texts and emails as evidence. Indeed, 'everyone was in the loop'. Multiple people in the Administration knew all about it.