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

[cow451]

"Holmes is now on to military aid, which he describes as “crucial” in the Ukrainian defensive war against Russia.

Holmes said he traveled to US-run military training facilities in Ukraine with congress members including Republican Elise Stefanik who sits on the committee.

He was “shocked” by the announcement in 18 July of the hold on assistance, Holmes says. The order had come from the president, an OMB official said, and it was conveyed by Mulvaney."

And thats the ballgame folks.

Trump University continues its losing streak against Deep State.

 

[Ken Rank]

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

Sondland framed the matter as widely understood across the Trump administration, indicating that senior officials and even cabinet secretaries were aware of the arrangement — and that it was carried out at the “express direction” of the president .

Story Continued Below



“Everyone was in the loop. It was no secret,” Sondland said, according to his prepared remarks. And he directly communicated the quid pro quo to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, Sondland said. He specifically cited a July 19 email copied to acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, Energy Secretary Rick Perry, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and “a lot of senior officials.” In that email, he reveals that he “just talked to Zelensky” and secured a commitment for a “fully transparent investigation.”

Six days later, Trump spoke directly to Zelensky and referenced his request for a Biden investigation during a phone call on July 25 that has become the central focus of the impeachment inquiry.
​

When he said there was a quid pro quo he was "presuming." What he actually recalls, the specific FACTS of the day.....

Case closed.... Trump and Zelensky said no quid pro quo... the two on the line with them testified of the same and now this. There is no case here... only Democrats trying to influence the next election.

 

[cow451]

When he said there was a quid pro quo he was "presuming." What he actually recalls, the specific FACTS of the day.....

Case closed.... Trump and Zelensky said no quid pro quo... the two on the line with them testified of the same and now this. There is no case here... only Democrats trying to influence the next election.

That’s sweet how one small piece of testimony from Sondland is all that counts. Please continue to ignore the preponderance of the evidence.

 

[NightHawkeye]

That’s sweet how one small piece of testimony from Sondland is all that counts. Please continue to ignore the preponderance of the evidence.

You mean all the other hearsay?

 

[cow451]

You mean all the other hearsay?

I hear you say you won’t hear the whole testimony.

 

[Hazelelponi]

I've seen no evidence presented in the hearings that Donald didn't desire this, and lots that he did.

If Donald wants to testify differently, he's free to do so. Until then, though, the evidence showing otherwise is pretty substantial.

And given his somewhat casual relationship with the truth, even if he did testify he'd need to bring a lot of documentation to back up his claims.

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.

The dems stated that Donald Trump leveraged his position of the presidency and withheld aid in order to achieve personal ends against a political candidate (who is not a political opponent until or unless he wins the democratic primary and has NO connection to crowd strike)

None of which, after all this, we have any proof of...

The best the dems have is that some guy, the EU ambassador at that not even the Ukrainian ambassador, ASSUMED that Trump was refusing a phone call and a meeting with the Ukrainian President UNTIL he got a public announcement by the President of the Ukraine that he would investigate Crowd Strike and one more company - one company of which led to an inappropriate and Illegal FISA warrant against a presidential candidate AFTER he won the Republican Primary.

Information in which the American people would benefit knowing if there was Ukrainian based corruption was behind - information that could arguably have gone in favor of Crowd Strike and the Obama administration as a whole.

However, this assumption of the EU ambassador was nothing more than his own assumption, one in which could have been cleared up by a simple phone call to the President and a direct question or two..

But in the end, we see no withheld phone call and no withheld meeting. and no statement by the President that he wanted anything in return.

So in the end the dems are left holding an empty bag of feelings over all important facts - and feelings and assumptions without basis in reality are not impeachable offenses. It's just one more failed attempt to overturn the 2016 elections..

 

[Ken Rank]

That’s sweet how one small piece of testimony from Sondland is all that counts. Please continue to ignore the preponderance of the evidence.

All the other evidence is hearsay. There were >>4<< people on the line that day... Trump, Zelensky, and two others. All 4 have said no quid pro quo. The TRANSCRIPT has no quid pro quo. Sondland, who ADMITTED his earlier testimony was presumption (see below) gets a direct question where he admits that Trump SPECIFICALLY SAID NO QUID PRO QUO. It really is over even though they will proceed... but there is nothing here.

 

[cow451]

All the other evidence is hearsay. There were >>4<< people on the line that day... Trump, Zelensky, and two others. All 4 have said no quid pro quo. The TRANSCRIPT has no quid pro quo. Sondland, who ADMITTED his earlier testimony was presumption (see below) gets a direct question where he admits that Trump SPECIFICALLY SAID NO QUID PRO QUO. It really is over even though they will proceed... but there is nothing here.

Hearsay was big in convicting Manson. People v. Manson
Virtually the only method by which a conspiracy can be proved is by circumstantial evidence -- the actions of the parties as they bear upon the common design.

 

[Kentonio]

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..

 

[cow451]

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..

Was that with pickle or pineapple? Do want fries with that? I’m sorry, our system is down. Can you do us a favor and pay in cash?

 

[Ken Rank]

Hearsay was big in convicting Manson. People v. Manson
Virtually the only method by which a conspiracy can be proved is by circumstantial evidence -- the actions of the parties as they bear upon the common design.

Fine... but in this case, the hearsay is contradicted by those who were there in person and by the guy who specifically asked Trump what he wants. The 4 people with FIRST HAND knowledge all said, "no quid pro quo." The one guy who walked up to Trump and asked him, "what do you want from Ukraine" got "Nothing, no quid pro quo" as his direct answer. Everyone else who has testified is basically repeating what others have said who WERE NOT THERE. So, no... in this case hearsay means nothing. Trump did not ask for a quid pro quo, he asked Zelensky to "do me a favor" (by definition a favor has nothing tied to it) in asking him to investigate the previous administrations corruption which included working with the American left against Trump during the election and the Bidens and Hunter making a small mint because his dad really DID blackmail the Ukrainians. Here is Joe... ADMITTING he held up a billion in order to get a guy fired who was investigating the company his son was working for. (I don't like the editing at the end of this, just saying) >>> important part starts at 1:30

 

[Kentonio]

Was Zelenskiy already under pressure?

Yes, says Holmes.

To investigate Biden, Burisma and the 2016 elections?

“Correct.”

 

[hislegacy]

JohnAshton said: ↑
Yes, the media is sticking to the facts, and the Trump supporters are painting themselves into a corner.

The evidence definitely underscores the fact that the President created a scenario that is impeachable and very probably criminal in nature.

Beyond presumptions and hearsay, there is zero evidence, which is what’s needed for impeachment

You've had a host of white house appointees testifying and telling you that yes Trump held back aid until the Ukrainian president gave a press conference saying he was investigating 2016 and Burisma/Biden. These people have testified under oath that it was understood by everyone involved what was happening. They have testified under oath about instructions given by Sondland to others about these things, and Sondland has testified that Pence, Perry, Guilliani and Pompeo were all in the loop and knew about this, with Guilliani pushing the President's agenda.

These people have testified under oath knowing that if they are shown to be lying they could face federal prison. Trump and his associates meanwhile are refusing to testify under oath and are simply putting out a series of statements on Twitter and to the media that often change as new evidence proves them untrue.

If you want to believe the guys not willing to put their version to an oath and potentially legal jeopardy then you're welcome to do so of course. But don't be surprised when people think thats quite wildly trusting of you.

everyone who has been questioned to date, when asked if they witnessed a Quid pro quo. Said no

everyone who has been questioned to date, when asked if they witnessed the President involved in bribery. Has said no

everyone who has been questioned to date, has been asked if they have evidence of treason has said no

the only thing they have in innuendo, presumption, and hearsay.

none of which is fact or evidence.

 

[Kentonio]

everyone who has been questioned to date, when asked if they witnessed a Quid pro quo. Said no

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.

 

[durangodawood]

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!...

Trump is such a shouter, and not just when he's under a helicopter. Of course he could be heard.

 

[Kentonio]

Trump is such a shouter, and not just when he's under a helicopter. Of course he could be heard.

Fairly sure I could hear him in France..

 

[Hazelelponi]

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.

you should engage in googling of the term quid pro quo..

 

[DaisyDay]

It's interesting that whatever side we are on, that what we believe. Sondland there wasn't quid pro quo and now he does? Which one is the truth? He's just proven himself completely unreliable.

Was he under oath before?

 

[Hazelelponi]

Beyond presumptions and hearsay, there is zero evidence, which is what’s needed for impeachment



everyone who has been questioned to date, when asked if they witnessed a Quid pro quo. Said no

everyone who has been questioned to date, when asked if they witnessed the President involved in bribery. Has said no

everyone who has been questioned to date, has been asked if they have evidence of treason has said no

the only thing they have in innuendo, presumption, and hearsay.

none of which is fact or evidence.

Yep. 10 assumptions do not equal one fact. 20 assumptions do not equal one fact. Not even 100 assumptions equals to one fact.

No one on earth has said the President said he wanted anything at all in return to them.

 

[JohnAshton]

None of that is working for the GOP, Hazelpond.