MUST WATCH: Rep. Mike Turner OBLITERATES Sondland’s testimony about a quid pro quo

[NightHawkeye]

From the "I just presumed everything I've said today about 'QUID PRO QUO'", files: MUST WATCH: Rep. Mike Turner OBLITERATES Sondland’s testimony about a quid pro quo

Democrats are still trying to claim that, despite Sondland’s testimony that Trump didn’t want a quid pro quo, that there really was a quid pro quo and that Sondland’s testimony proves it because of his opening statement and initial testimony. But Rep. Mike Turner pretty much put an end to all of that in his epic cross examination of Sondland:
...
Turner gets Sondland on the record saying that no one “on the planet” every told him that Trump was tying aid to any investigations, and that his testimony is not saying that there was ever a tie between the aid and the investigations.​

Incredible!

Democrats can impeach ... but they still have no evidence for a QUID PRO QUO.

 

[timothyu]

In an un-surprising turn of events today, two sides claimed the upper hand. Nothing changes in the ways of man for 5000 years. Best part is none seem to realise they will not even have a say come resurrection time. All are guilty. Silly human games played by silly humans.

 

[stevil]

Turner gets Sondland on the record saying that no one “on the planet” every told him that Trump was tying aid to any investigations, ​

​

Yes, I thought this was very interesting.
So it seems Sondland has been going around telling people that Trump will not give aid or white house meeting until the public announcement of investigation into Burisma.

We all assumed Sondland had been directed by Trump and/or Giuliani as that is his job, to do the president and administration's bidding.

I'd like to know why Sondland "pressumed" this is the case. What was it that led him to presume this??

Of course this doesn't take away the fact that Trump on his phone call with Ukranian president straight after mention of the Javelins said "I need you to do a favour though and then he went on to talk about Burisma and the Bidens. And also the irregularity of Trump telling people to talk to Giuliani and Barr.

If this were a fair trial you would need testimony from:
Trump
Giuliani
Barr
Perry
Pompeo
Mulvaney
Pence

It makes no sense to block all these testimonies and then use as a defence "but no-one who testified has first hand knowledge"

 

[NightHawkeye]

​

Yes, I thought this was very interesting.
So it seems Sondland has been going around telling people that Trump will not give aid or white house meeting until the public announcement of investigation into Burisma.

We all assumed Sondland had been directed by Trump and/or Giuliani as that is his job, to do the president and administration's bidding.

I'd like to know why Sondland "pressumed" this is the case. What was it that led him to presume this??

Of course this doesn't take away the fact that Trump on his phone call with Ukranian president straight after mention of the Javelins said "I need you to do a favour though and then he went on to talk about Burisma and the Bidens. And also the irregularity of Trump telling people to talk to Giuliani and Barr.

If this were a fair trial you would need testimony from:
Trump
Giuliani
Barr
Perry
Pompeo
Mulvaney
Pence

It makes no sense to block all these testimonies and then use as a defence "but no-one who testified has first hand knowledge"

Have you ever noticed that most investigations start with an actual CRIME?

In this instance, there is no evidence of an actual crime. Instead of looking for the perpetrator of the crime, the investigation is LOOKING for a crime, any crime they can blame on Trump. Well, maybe tomorrow.

Any chance that approach seems a little backward to you? Jus' curious ...

 

[stevil]

Have you ever noticed that most investigations start with an actual CRIME?

Well no, that's not right.

Investigations start before a crime has been determined.
They investigate potential crimes.

In the case of this impeachment trial, it is being investigated whether the current president abused the power of his office. Whether he bribed the Ukraine with tax payer's money for a public announcement into an investigation of Burisma (the Bidens) for the sole purpose of helping him in the next election as Joe is a likely political opponent.

Any chance that approach seems a little backward to you? Jus' curious ...

Given the whistleblower complaint, the aid hold up, the public statements by Trump and Mulvaney, the phone conversation transcript, the unusual Giuliani involvement, the lack of evidence for Biden crimes, the removal of the previous Ukraine ambassador, the lack of reasonable explanation from Trump and his defenders. It seems totally appropriate to me that this is being investigated.
It would seem inappropriate (to me) if there were no investigation into this.

 

[NightHawkeye]

Well no, that's not right.

Investigations start before a crime has been determined.
They investigate potential crimes.

In the case of this impeachment trial, it is being investigated whether the current president abused the power of his office. Whether he bribed the Ukraine with tax payer's money for a public announcement into an investigation of Burisma (the Bidens) for the sole purpose of helping him in the next election as Joe is a likely political opponent.


Given the whistleblower complaint, the aid hold up, the public statements by Trump and Mulvaney, the phone conversation transcript, the unusual Giuliani involvement, the lack of evidence for Biden crimes, the removal of the previous Ukraine ambassador, the lack of reasonable explanation from Trump and his defenders. It seems totally appropriate to me that this is being investigated.
It would seem inappropriate (to me) if there were no investigation into this.

Almost no investigations, none I can think of off-hand, start unless an actual CRIME has been alleged.

In this instance though the star witnesses, one of whom apparently got this whole investigation rolling, could not name the CRIME or impeachable event being alleged. Yet, despite that, the Democrats so badly want to impeach Trump that they decided to go ahead with impeachment anyway.

Still, they search for some high crime or misdemeanor. Even a low-level crime will seemingly suffice at this juncture. No doubt they will have articles of impeachment written up ... but at this point those articles will likely serve only to indict some of those involved in the investigation, just as the Russia hoax has done.

 

[timothyu]

I thought Trump was moving to Florida anyway.

 

[com7fy8]

For starters, I'm going to have to look up what a quid pro quo is > maybe a squid's professional quote . . . or something like this?

At least it seems they agree on what this means.

Oh . . . it is a favor which is payed back for something.

 

[com7fy8]

It seems ones say Donald wants the President of Ukraine to announce an investigation into a company which is connected with Joe Biden.

A thing in the mix is that Ukraine has been known to have corruption problems, ongoing.

So, I find it interesting that President Trump would expect a president of a corrupt government to do an investigation reliably . . . without any bribes or coverups.

May be the President understands this problem, and therefore has only asked for an announcement.

 

[GodLovesCats]

It makes no sense to block all these testimonies and then use as a defense "but no-one who testified has first hand knowledge"

If Donald Trump is honest he does not know ALL of the witnesses who have testified so far DO have first-hand knowledge. But that does not make any sense because both Williams and Vindman were on the call. The ONLY safe assumption is Trump is guilty and blocking people from testifying against him.

 

[GodLovesCats]

Have you ever noticed that most investigations start with an actual CRIME?

In this instance, there is no evidence of an actual crime. Instead of looking for the perpetrator of the crime, the investigation is LOOKING for a crime, any crime they can blame on Trump. Well, maybe tomorrow.

Nobody is looking for a crime. Multlple crimes have already been found. Otherwise they never would have thought about investigating Trump.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

I'd like to know why Sondland "pressumed" this is the case. What was it that led him to presume this??

According to his testimony, it's because Trump told him to "talk to Rudy" about anything related to Ukraine, and Giuliani is the one who told him that the investigations were necessary for a White House meeting an the release of aid. The presumption was that, because Trump declared Giuliani his surrogate related to Ukraine, any instructions from Giuliani about Ukraine could be treated as directives from the President.

 

[essentialsaltes]

A lot of this Republican bafflegab is equivocation with regard to the aid. Sondland is much more direct in his discussion of the QPQ with respect to the meeting.

Fourth, 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 investigations of the 2016 election/DNC server and
Burisma. Mr. Giuliani was expressing the desires of the President of the United States, and we
knew that these investigations were important to the President.

 

[Hank77]

According to his testimony, it's because Trump told him to "talk to Rudy" about anything related to Ukraine, and Giuliani is the one who told him that the investigations were necessary for a White House meeting an the release of aid. The presumption was that, because Trump declared Giuliani his surrogate related to Ukraine, any instructions from Giuliani about Ukraine could be treated as directives from the President.

Yup, the chain of command.
Giuliani has stated publicly that the President knew what he was doing and that he was serving his client.
Those statements made on live media can be evidence in an investigation or a trial.

 

[stevil]

Almost no investigations, none I can think of off-hand, start unless an actual CRIME has been alleged.

The whistleblower complaint was an allegation of abuse of power.

In this instance though the star witnesses, one of whom apparently got this whole investigation rolling, could not name the CRIME or impeachable event being alleged.

Those called to testify, aren't people making allegations.
They are just testifying the facts.
If they themselves made allegations, or draw conclusions then they would be accused of being biased and their testimonies would then be cast in doubt.
Instead they state facts and they state their own emotional responses to things. If you want someone to give an authoritative determination as to guilt you should ask qualified judges and lawyers rather than people giving testimony.

Yet, despite that, the Democrats so badly want to impeach Trump

I don't think the Democrats gain anything from impeaching Trump.
Pence would become president, Republicans would continue to have control.

The Democrats are disadvantaged if the Republican president is blackmailing Ukraine into publicly announcing investigations into Democrat presidential candidates. So if that is the case, the Democrats are wise to (and bound by the Constitution) to try and stop corruption of the Executive Branch.

 

[stevil]

According to his testimony, it's because Trump told him to "talk to Rudy" about anything related to Ukraine, and Giuliani is the one who told him that the investigations were necessary for a White House meeting an the release of aid.

And so Giuliani needs to testify.

Either he admits to being the source of this quid pro quo and he suffers the consequences or he testifies that his orders came from his boss.

Trump's "talk to Rudy" must mean that Trump is already culpable for what Rudy has been instructing people. It doesn't seem that people felt comfortable going to the Boss and asking him if Rudy's instructions are really what he wants.

Trump, it seems, is smart enough to ensure he has a fall guy to do the dirty work, a "wiseguy". Except that Trump slipped up in that phone call and with his subsequent television admission on the lawn.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Either he admits to being the source of this quid pro quo and he suffers the consequences or he testifies that his orders can from his boss.

Normally, yes, but he's already stated to the media that Trump knew what he was doing and he was acting in the interests of his client, as an attorney, with his work in Ukraine. That says, to me at least, that Trump did know about it. It's true that those are not statements under oath, but they were made publicly and not disputed by Trump.

 

[DaisyDay]

Have you ever noticed that most investigations start with an actual CRIME?

In this instance, there is no evidence of an actual crime. Instead of looking for the perpetrator of the crime, the investigation is LOOKING for a crime, any crime they can blame on Trump. Well, maybe tomorrow.

That sounds more like the years-long investigation of Bill Clinton - Whitewater, Travelgate, etc. until finally, Linda Tripp betrayed Monica Lewinsky.

Any chance that approach seems a little backward to you? Jus' curious ...

A crime has been alleged which is what is being investigated, duh.

 

[BobRyan]

From the "I just presumed everything I've said today about 'QUID PRO QUO'", files: MUST WATCH: Rep. Mike Turner OBLITERATES Sondland’s testimony about a quid pro quo

Democrats are still trying to claim that, despite Sondland’s testimony that Trump didn’t want a quid pro quo, that there really was a quid pro quo and that Sondland’s testimony proves it because of his opening statement and initial testimony. But Rep. Mike Turner pretty much put an end to all of that in his epic cross examination of Sondland:
...
Turner gets Sondland on the record saying that no one “on the planet” every told him that Trump was tying aid to any investigations, and that his testimony is not saying that there was ever a tie between the aid and the investigations.​

Incredible!

Democrats can impeach ... but they still have no evidence for a QUID PRO QUO.

yep.. it is still "much ado about nothing"

 

[timothyu]

Thanksgiving dinners in the US could be livelier than usual this year. lol