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

[Go Braves]

You are still not answering my question.

On account of how I can't since I'm not the one you're actually asking the question to. I'm not in Donald's base & cannot for the life of me pretend to understand what the heck goes through their minds.

 

[durangodawood]

....And it didn't ever actually happen. Ukraine got their aid and their meeting without announcing anything.

ha ha... yeah, once an investigation was on the table its like "oh ____ clean up this mess!"

 

[cow451]

Generally not.

Think RICO.

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.

AP Explains: What’s wrong with hearsay evidence in Congress?
The rules of evidence don’t apply in Congress. It’s a foolish analysis,” said Edward MacMahon, a criminal defense lawyer from Middleburg, Virginia, who has handled numerous high-profile cases. “The common law rules of evidence were not designed to deal with political hearings.”

 

[wing2000]

Generally not.

...that isn't what I hear from prosecutors.

 

[KCfromNC]

Because it is the truth

Interesting assertion. Too bad there is nothing to back up the empty claim. I wonder why.

The media is doing a good job spinning this tale.

By accurately reporting the facts coming out of the various testimonies.

 

[KCfromNC]

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

No, I'd never make such a dumb claim like that. I prefer to stick with actual facts rather than fabrications.

 

[KCfromNC]

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 can imagine the collective head-explosion if this standard was actually used to reverse the sentence of defendants viewed as "thugs" in right-wing media

 

[KCfromNC]

Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
I have been watching people making phone calls my entire life. My hearing is, and has been, great. Never have I been watching a person making a call, which was not on speakerphone, and been able to hear or understand a conversation. I’ve even tried, but to no avail. Try it live!

You really couldn't make this stuff up..

There has to be an Obamaphone joke in here somewhere, so at least the tweet is useful for something.

 

[KCfromNC]

No they didn't.

Did you make the Biden-Burisma connection?

Hill: "it was very apparent."

Holmes: "Yes."

Morrison: Not right away, then "I googled it."

Sondland: I kinda figured it out by July-August, but didn't see GIuliani's TV hits or tweets.

Volker: No, never until the scandal broke.

I can't help but notice all the empty assertions that there's no evidence are easily countered by actual quotes from real testimony of the people involved.

 

[KCfromNC]

For one thing the sworn testimony of the man pushing that request for Trump says that Trump wanted the press conference announcing it, but didn’t really care about any actual investigation.

And just as Donald was preparing a series of Facebook against that same political rival. Quite a coincidence there.

 

[KCfromNC]

my he ones they got the funding for for doing:

not one thing.

Just because Donald is a failure at actually bribing someone doesn't mean the attempt isn't a crime.

 

[KCfromNC]

Exactly right about that. According to Donald lolgic Watergate wasn't wrong at all on account of how they only broke in, but failed to accomplish their objective.

Plus, didn't Nixon say he wasn't a crook? Well, there you go, no crime since the guy being accused didn't put out a notarized statement admitting to it.

 

[KCfromNC]

There's no question he asked the Ukrainian government to investigate Crowd Strike and that other company ..

the mere act of asking is neither the issue nor an impeachable offense.

For some reason you left out the part where he also specifically asked about investigation into one of his likely election opponents - by name, no less - and tied it to aid which we was illegally holding up.

 

[rjs330]

...that isn't what I hear from prosecutors.

I've been in many many trials over the years as I work in the legal system. Hearsay is almost never allowed. There are some very strict restrictions on hearsay. If the witness is alive and able to testify it's almost never allowed. And if it's a "Billy told me that Bobby told him" it won't be allowed 99.9% of the time.

 

[rjs330]

Interesting assertion. Too bad there is nothing to back up the empty claim. I wonder why.



By accurately reporting the facts coming out of the various testimonies.

Oh you mean like all the headlines that state Sondland said there was quid pro quo when he actually said the opposite?

 

[wing2000]

I've been in many many trials over the years as I work in the legal system. Hearsay is almost never allowed. There are some very strict restrictions on hearsay. If the witness is alive and able to testify it's almost never allowed. And if it's a "Billy told me that Bobby told him" it won't be allowed 99.9% of the time.

....or in cases where the witnesses are not allowed to testify. I welcome hearing from Pompeo, Mulvaney and the President.

 

[whatbogsends]

Oh you mean like all the headlines that state Sondland said there was quid pro quo when he actually said the opposite?

Your statement is false. Maybe you should actually listen to Sondland, who expressly says there was a quid pro quo.

What he has said is that there was a policy of quid pro quo, but that after this investigation started, Trump told him "there was no quid pro quo"t, despite the obvious facts pointing otherwise.

If Trump points a gun to someone's head and says "I'm not threatening you", he's still threatening that person, despite what Trump says.

 

[rjs330]

Your statement is false. Maybe you should actually listen to Sondland, who expressly says there was a quid pro quo.

What he has said is that there was a policy of quid pro quo, but that after this investigation started, Trump told him "there was no quid pro quo"t, despite the obvious facts pointing otherwise.

If Trump points a gun to someone's head and says "I'm not threatening you", he's still threatening that person, despite what Trump says.

Oh you mean when Sondland said there was no quid pro quo? Trump told him directly there wasn't any and Sondland admitted that Ukraine got their meeting and got their aid without having to announce anything. Sondland testified he never heard Trump say he demanded anything.

 

[rjs330]

Sondland also stated no one told him any aid was tied to anything.

Sondland Affirms ‘No One on This Planet’ Told Him Trump Was Tying Ukraine Aid to Investigating Bidens

 

[whatbogsends]

Oh you mean when Sondland said there was no quid pro quo? Trump told him directly there wasn't any and Sondland admitted that Ukraine got their meeting and got their aid without having to announce anything. Sondland testified he never heard Trump say he demanded anything.

Very good job of ignoring what Sondland said in full context in the link I provided.

Ukraine did not get the meeting in the White House. They only got their aid after the Ukraine investigation was under way.

Oh, yes, Trump, after being investigated for his actions in Ukraine, told Sondland "there was no quid pro quo". As I said: If Trump points a gun to someone's head and says "I'm not threatening you", he's still threatening that person, despite what Trump says.