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

[rjs330]

Yes, the phone call was a quid pro quo. Deny it all anyone wants, reasonable people understand that it was a quid pro quo and is impeachable behavior.

Since when has the left been reasonable where it comes to Trump? Every single the they assume he committed some sort of offense.

 

[GodLovesCats]

It has nothing to do with people being on the left side. It is 100% about doing what needs to be done due to the U.S. Constiutional mandate. What is so hard to understand about that?

 

[rjs330]

If you just want to ignore all the people who have just testified under oath that Trump demanded the Ukrainian President give a public statement about investigating Biden and 2016 before releasing the aid, then I really have very little to say to you.

The evidence is right there in front of you. Sworn testimonies which carry the threat of federal prison if the people involved lie, and they make absolutely and abundantly clear that everyone involved at the top level knew exactly what was being demanded by Trump.

Meanwhile Trump refuses to allow those closest to him to testify, despite according to you him having done nothing wrong. Does that even make any sense to you? If you had a number of witnesses who could testify to your innocence are you seriously telling me that you’d deliberately prevent them from clearing your name? In what world does that even make any sense?

But hey, I know none of this will change your mind in any way. We live in a post-truth world now, where small stuff like evidence, honesty and integrity matter less than nothing to some people. So we’ll continue to hear Trump’s obfuscations parroted in endless misleading partisan news reports, ‘political analysis’ and internet threads, and some of the most corrupt people in the country will walk free while sniggering at the supporters who would support them even if they ‘shot someone on 5th avenue’.

No one has actually testified to that. They've all presumed that was the case. And it didn't ever actually happen. Ukraine got their aid and their meeting without announcing anything.

 

[GodLovesCats]

No one has actually testified to that. They've all presumed that was the case. And it didn't ever actually happen. Ukraine got their aid and their meeting without announcing anything.

Everyone testified to it. The only person I heard use the word "presume" was the one who never took any notes and relied on his memory.

The fact that Ukraine finally got the aid does not take away the fact that there was clearly quid pro quo in the phone call transcript.

 

[rjs330]

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.

They have yet to find a witness that can prove the claim. All they have are feelings, beliefs and hearsay.

 

[wing2000]

The evidence is right there in front of you.

"...I need you to do us favor though"

 

[rjs330]

You mean all the other hearsay?

That's what he means, yes.

 

[GodLovesCats]

They have yet to find a witness that can prove the claim. All they have are feelings, beliefs and hearsay.

All of them have first-hand knowledge and testified it under oath. Nobody just has feelings and beliefs.

 

[wing2000]

That's what he means, yes.

You do realize that hearsay is admitted as evidence in court rooms every day?

 

[rjs330]

All of them have first-hand knowledge and testified it under oath. Nobody just has feelings and beliefs.

NONE of them have first hand knowledge of the claim. They all had concerns or hearsay or belief. None of them hear Trump day this for that.

 

[GodLovesCats]

NONE of them have first hand knowledge of the claim. They all had concerns or hearsay or belief. None of them heard Trump say this for that.

ALL of them had first-hand knowledge and said so under oath. What makes you think they do not?

Two witnesses were ON THE CALL. They heard every word.

 

[whatbogsends]

They matter to me.. if there's nothing to look into its good to know. If there's something it's good to know.

The American people deserve to know what's debunked and what's not.

Trump promised transparency.. he didn't hide the fact he asked. I don't find it inherently problematic to ask an ally to look into potential corruption...

Would anyone blink an eye over asking an Mi6 operative to contact the Russian government in the hopes of gaining "dirt" on a political candidate in order to obtain a FISA warrant for wiretapping?

not the dems most certainly. Well if that's old hat how much more vanilla is asking a new President of an ally to find out if there was really corruption or not when that country has been screaming there was?

Trump promised to release his taxes. He's then fought tooth and nail not too.

Trump promised to repeal and replace Obamacare on day 1, but 3 years later, not even an inkling of a plan is yet to be found.

Trump promised to drain the swamp, but the corruption in his administration dwarfs that of previous ones.

Trump promised transparency, but hid the actual transcript of the Ukraine call on a classified server against normal protocols.

Trump promised transparency, but has blocked first hand witnesses from testifying.

Trump promised transparency, but refused to speak with Mueller.

Trump promised transparency, but his written testimony to Mueller, which was replete with "I don't recall", is in contradiction to other known facts (Stone).

 

[GodLovesCats]

I know CF rules prohibit calling Donald Trump a liar, but there is no way to interpret any failed promise as forgetting to do something. I cannot for the life of me imagine he was being honest about himself and us. When he promised to release his tax returns, I knew it was not going to happen.

 

[Go Braves]

I know CF rules prohibit calling Donald Trump a liar, but there is no way to interpret any failed promise as forgetting to do something. I cannot for the life of me imagine he was being honest about himself and us. When he promised to release his tax returns, I knew it was not going to happen.

Unfortunately there's folks who are more upset about their Donald being called out on lying than the facts of his lies.

 

[GodLovesCats]

Unfortunately there's folks who are more upset about their Donald being called out on lying than the facts of his lies.

I am still waiting for those people to explain why they refuse to believe the facts which disprove what the President says while calling themselves Christians, who of course know lying is a deadly sin.

 

[Go Braves]

I am still waiting for those people to explain why they refuse to believe the facts which disprove what the President says while calling themselves Christians, who of course know lying is a deadly sin.

Seems like a lot of them unfortunately think Donald is the one who makes the facts, makes the truth, will believe whatever he tells them to believe even when it's in direct contradiction to what he previously told them.

 

[GodLovesCats]

But why do they when they know he is obviously not God and evidence proves him wrong even before he talks?

 

[rjs330]

You do realize that hearsay is admitted as evidence in court rooms every day?

Generally not.

 

[Go Braves]

But why do they when they know he is obviously not God and evidence proves him wrong even before he talks?

If Donald scooped bullcrap into dessert bowls, said it was chocolate pudding, there's folks who'd lick the bowl clean.

 

[GodLovesCats]

If Donald scooped bullcrap into dessert bowls, said it was chocolate pudding, there's folks who'd lick the bowl clean.

You are still not answering my question.