Impeachment

[Chris0nllyn]

He was threatened into it. I think that's pretty obvious.

What is your explanation for him changing his story?

I wouldn't say it's "obvious" that he was threatened. It's a theory though.

We know that Sondland added in an appendix to his sworn testimony that he recalls speaking with Yermak (one of Zelensky's top advisors) and that "[Sondland] said that resumption of U.S. aid would likely not occur until Ukraine provided the public anti-corruption statement that we had been discussing for many weeks." We know that "public anti-corruption statement" was to have Zelensky publicly announce an investigation into Burisma Group. As Trump asked.
https://apps.npr.org/documents/document.html?id=6540412-Gordon-Sondland-Testimony

We know that Sondland didn't change anything until after William Taylor (current U.S. ambassador to Ukraine) testified that Sondland told Ukraine officials that the aid wouldn't be released until after the Burisma/Biden investigation went forward.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/3059b3b8-ffec-11e9-9518-1e76abc088b6_story.html

We know that the Trump campaign tried to block Sondland from testifying.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/08/us/politics/sondland-trump-ukraine-impeach.html

I want all these people under oath in open testimony. Until that happens it's just bullshit.

These testimonies are under oath and their transcripts have been released.

In addition to those two, Kurt Volker, Marie Yovanovitch, and Michael McKinley's transcripts were also released. Painting a picture of partisanship among the State Dept. and trying to remove Yavanovitch from her role because she stood in the way of convincing Zelensky to investigate Joe Biden.

 

[vraiblonde]

https://apps.npr.org/documents/document.html?id=6540412-Gordon-Sondland-Testimony

https://www.washingtonpost.com/3059b3b8-ffec-11e9-9518-1e76abc088b6_story.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/08/us/politics/sondland-trump-ukraine-impeach.html

Yeah, let me just stop you right there.

All three of your "sources" are bullshit propaganda sites that have been stone cold busted lying and engaging in Trump hysteria. You believe them and glom on because they'll tell you what you want to hear. Do you have an unbiased source for your claims?

 

[Chris0nllyn]

Yeah, let me just stop you right there.

All three of your "sources" are bullshit propaganda sites that have been stone cold busted lying and engaging in Trump hysteria. You believe them and glom on because they'll tell you what you want to hear. Do you have an unbiased source for your claims?

You can look it up in your own sources. I'm not going to do your own work for you especially if you look at something like actual testimony from the intel committee and say it's BS because it's on a NPR link.

 

[vraiblonde]

And Chris? Let me tell you what would constitute an unbiased source:

Direct from the horse's mouth. Them on camera testifying. Not a recap from the fake news people; not their spin and cherrypicking. I believe what I see with my own eyes and hear with my own ears.

Do you have anything like that?

 

[vraiblonde]

You can look it up in your own sources.

I don't have any sources. You know why? Because the Democrats have decided to do this covertly, behind closed doors with no cameras and no validation.

What are they afraid of?

 

[Chris0nllyn]

What are they afraid of?

Likely the same thing the Benghazi Committee was when they held everything in secret.

Like I said, transcripts of each testimony from each witness listed above is available publicly.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...ent-witness-testimony-transcripts/4163983002/


Instead of making a general, sweeping, assumption that the information is incorrect based on the website it's hosted on, you could ask what specific parts you take issue with. But someone looking for the truth using their own comprehension abilities doesn't do that. Someone looking for confirmation bias bitches about the source.

 

[This_person]

We know that Sondland added in an appendix to his sworn testimony that he recalls speaking with Yermak (one of Zelensky's top advisors) and that "[Sondland] said that resumption of U.S. aid would likely not occur until Ukraine provided the public anti-corruption statement that we had been discussing for many weeks." We know that "public anti-corruption statement" was to have Zelensky publicly announce an investigation into Burisma Group. As Trump asked.
https://apps.npr.org/documents/document.html?id=6540412-Gordon-Sondland-Testimony

We know that Sondland didn't change anything until after William Taylor (current U.S. ambassador to Ukraine) testified that Sondland told Ukraine officials that the aid wouldn't be released until after the Burisma/Biden investigation went forward.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/3059b3b8-ffec-11e9-9518-1e76abc088b6_story.html

So, we know he now remembers an opinion being expressed.

That provides evidence of one guy saying another guy had an opinion.

In addition to those two, Kurt Volker, Marie Yovanovitch, and Michael McKinley's transcripts were also released. Painting a picture of partisanship among the State Dept. and trying to remove Yavanovitch from her role because she stood in the way of convincing Zelensky to investigate Joe Biden.

Or, painting a picture of unbiased attempts at justice being thwarted by partisan folks protecting Biden.

 

[vraiblonde]

Instead of making a general, sweeping, assumption that the information is incorrect based on the website it's hosted on, you could ask what specific parts you take issue with. But someone looking for the truth using their own comprehension abilities doesn't do that. Someone looking for confirmation bias bitches about the source.

You can believe proven repeat liars if you want to. I choose not to. Perhaps the news people shouldn't lie, then I'd be more inclined to trust them.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

So, we know he now remembers an opinion being expressed.

That provides evidence of one guy saying another guy had an opinion.

You believe recalling a conversation he himself had is an opinion? I'm not understanding.

I believe this is what I typed above. That "Sondland added in an appendix to his sworn testimony that he recalls speaking with Yermak". What about that is not a matter of fact and an opinion?

Or, painting a picture of unbiased attempts at justice being thwarted by partisan folks protecting Biden.

Could be if you believe she lied in her testimony that she never met Hunter Biden nor ever had Joe Biden or anyone else ever even mention Burisma or Hunter Biden.

I have never met Hunter Biden, nor have I had any direct or indirect conversations with him. Of course, I have met former V'ice President Biden several times over the course of our many years in government, but neither he nor the previous administration ever directly or indirectly raised the issue either of Burisma or Hunter Biden with me'

Do you feel she was protecting Biden? It's not clear. We know that she left her job in May. Trump's phone call was in July.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

You can believe proven repeat liars if you want to. I choose not to. Perhaps the news people shouldn't lie, then I'd be more inclined to trust them.

What specific information that I posted above do you take issue with?

What known "not liar" sources did you use to come up with the conclusion that he was "threatened" into amending his testimony?

 

[BernieP]

Yep, and now all of the witnesses are recalling events the same way, AND Sondland is saying that he told Ukraine about the QPQ on sept 1. I have a feeling Sondland knows there is evidence of that action that will come to light and his lawyers recommended he get out in front of it.

I believe what he said was that the he told the foreign minister that the administration wanted a pledge that the Ukraine was going to clean up corruption in the country. Making aid conditional on the recipient making improvements in areas of human rights, corruption, etc. is not a quid pro quo, it's a fairly routine policy. Biden should be the one being investigated as he bragged about threatening the Ukraine over the prosecutor that was investigation the company his son worked for. Why is he not being questioned about his own words, bragging about the influence he had (with US aid) in getting the prosecutor removed?
What I see is one more investigation, with carefully leaked information, to keep marginalizing the legitimacy of Trump's election.
First is was Russia Gate, but Mueller came up empty, now there are serious legal questions about the veracity of the methods originally used, the use of FISA warrants and unmasking of citizens. The use of the intelligence community and the justice department to infiltrate and smear a rival campaign. Long forgotten is that it was the DNC and the Clinton campaign that went to Russia looking for dirt on Trump. The FBI somehow didn't secure evidence until after the Clinton employees wiped the hard drive. But Trump is in trouble because he joked that Russia might have those missing emails. And were is the media on all this, are they asking questions about the abuse of power by the Obama administration to aid his successor? How about breaking laws and spying on US citizens? How about fraudulently obtaining warrants. Easier to believe the Russians did something than to pursue the evidence that the computers were actually compromised by Ukrainian nationals.

 

[kom526]

I'mma leave this here.
https://twitchy.com/samj-3930/2019/...mark-zaid-is-so-very-very-damning-screenshot/

 

[vraiblonde]

What specific information that I posted above do you take issue with?

You didn't post any information that I saw. You posted takes from leftwing Trump hater sites that are known to lie.

What known "not liar" sources did you use to come up with the conclusion that he was "threatened" into amending his testimony?

And there it is. You were quick to strawman this time and I appreciate you saving me some time.

* click *

 

[vraiblonde]

What I see is one more investigation, with carefully leaked information, to keep marginalizing the legitimacy of Trump's election.

Exactly. If they had anything solid, they'd start formal impeachment hearings. Clinton's whole impeachment, from the finalized Starr report through the House impeachment hearings to the Senate vote took 5 months.

Starr report delivered to Congress September 9, 1998
Impeachment proceedings begin on October 8
House votes to impeach on December 19
Senate trial began on January 7, 1999
Voted on the articles February 12

Trump's impeachment has been going on for four years and counting, and they still haven't started any formal proceedings.

Sh*t or git.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

I wouldn't say it's "obvious" that he was threatened. It's a theory though.

We know that Sondland added in an appendix to his sworn testimony that he recalls speaking with Yermak (one of Zelensky's top advisors) and that "[Sondland] said that resumption of U.S. aid would likely not occur until Ukraine provided the public anti-corruption statement that we had been discussing for many weeks." We know that "public anti-corruption statement" was to have Zelensky publicly announce an investigation into Burisma Group. As Trump asked.
https://apps.npr.org/documents/document.html?id=6540412-Gordon-Sondland-Testimony

We know that Sondland didn't change anything until after William Taylor (current U.S. ambassador to Ukraine) testified that Sondland told Ukraine officials that the aid wouldn't be released until after the Burisma/Biden investigation went forward.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/3059b3b8-ffec-11e9-9518-1e76abc088b6_story.html

We know that the Trump campaign tried to block Sondland from testifying.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/08/us/politics/sondland-trump-ukraine-impeach.html


These testimonies are under oath and their transcripts have been released.

In addition to those two, Kurt Volker, Marie Yovanovitch, and Michael McKinley's transcripts were also released. Painting a picture of partisanship among the State Dept. and trying to remove Yavanovitch from her role because she stood in the way of convincing Zelensky to investigate Joe Biden.

Posts information found from transcripts that are actual words from actual people.

Yeah, let me just stop you right there.

All three of your "sources" are bullshit propaganda sites that have been stone cold busted lying and engaging in Trump hysteria. You believe them and glom on because they'll tell you what you want to hear. Do you have an unbiased source for your claims?

And Chris? Let me tell you what would constitute an unbiased source:

Direct from the horse's mouth. Them on camera testifying. Not a recap from the fake news people; not their spin and cherrypicking. I believe what I see with my own eyes and hear with my own ears.

Do you have anything like that?

Your sources suck! I want to know what these people actually said!

Likely the same thing the Benghazi Committee was when they held everything in secret.

Like I said, transcripts of each testimony from each witness listed above is available publicly.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...ent-witness-testimony-transcripts/4163983002/


Instead of making a general, sweeping, assumption that the information is incorrect based on the website it's hosted on, you could ask what specific parts you take issue with. But someone looking for the truth using their own comprehension abilities doesn't do that. Someone looking for confirmation bias bitches about the source.

Provides a link to the transcripts. Then asks what info you have a problem with, specifically.

You can believe proven repeat liars if you want to. I choose not to. Perhaps the news people shouldn't lie, then I'd be more inclined to trust them.

But your sources lie!

What specific information that I posted above do you take issue with?

What known "not liar" sources did you use to come up with the conclusion that he was "threatened" into amending his testimony?

Okay, so what specific bit of my post do you take issue with?

You didn't post any information that I saw. You posted takes from leftwing Trump hater sites that are known to lie.



And there it is. You were quick to strawman this time and I appreciate you saving me some time.

* click *

You didn't post any info!

Then called it a strawman argument to ask you about your own opinion on the matter.

 

[Yooper]

What is your explanation for Sondland changing his story?

As I said, recollection/correction. Folks change testimony all the time. If it is even that. Sure, according to The Guardian it is, but I tend to view The Guardian with a jaundiced eye. I'm still not yet persuaded to any degree there's smoke, never mind a fire.

--- End of line (MCP)

 

[WingsOfGold]

Yeah, let me just stop you right there.

All three of your "sources" are bullshit propaganda sites that have been stone cold busted lying and engaging in Trump hysteria. You believe them and glom on because they'll tell you what you want to hear. Do you have an unbiased source for your claims?

NPR Admits a Liberal Bias

National Public Radio is properly understood, even by the media, as radio by and for liberals, not the general public. As Washington Post media reporter Howard Kurtz puts it, the media landscape stretches "from those who cheer Fox to those who swear by NPR."

www.mrc.org

and the other two don't need any research. Curious, do you feel like a manly woman breaking it off in Chrissy's ass time after time?

 

[Chris0nllyn]

NPR Admits a Liberal Bias

National Public Radio is properly understood, even by the media, as radio by and for liberals, not the general public. As Washington Post media reporter Howard Kurtz puts it, the media landscape stretches "from those who cheer Fox to those who swear by NPR."

www.mrc.org

and the other two don't need any research. Curious, do you feel like a manly woman breaking it off in Chrissy's ass time after time?

The link is to the public transcript of the actual testimony. Where it's hosted has absolutely zero bearing on the content. You know that, right?

 

[SamSpade]

The link is to the public transcript of the actual testimony. Where it's hosted has absolutely zero bearing on the content. You know that, right?

Ok, a little late to the discussion - there was a public meeting where the entire testimony was recorded, and in front of God and everyone?
The transcript is everything, from start to finish?

 

[BernieP]

Exactly. If they had anything solid, they'd start formal impeachment hearings. Clinton's whole impeachment, from the finalized Starr report through the House impeachment hearings to the Senate vote took 5 months.

Starr report delivered to Congress September 9, 1998
Impeachment proceedings begin on October 8
House votes to impeach on December 19
Senate trial began on January 7, 1999
Voted on the articles February 12

Trump's impeachment has been going on for four years and counting, and they still haven't started any formal proceedings.

Sh*t or git.

There's the problem, the Mueller report failed to give them a reason for impeachment.
They have been determined to impeach him since November 2016
Since taking control of the House, that's all they have done.
Hillary Clinton was supposed to win the election, except that nobody told the voters.
What's being exposed is the depth and breadth of the people and groups that were aligned to prevent Trump from taking office.
Some what of a generalization but the left / liberals have this trait, they are smarter than you, therefore they know more and only they have all the facts. What they frequently have is prejudice, a lack of understanding of how things work, the law and the constitution. They are quick to jump to a conclusion based on their prejudice. Don't know if you saw the interview about Gibson's Bakery and Oberlin College.
The kids outside ASSUMED the white dude was attacking the black kid because he was a racist.
Even when the facts were made clear and the charges were filed, they continued, with assistance from the college, to protest and liable the story and the Gibson family. No historical basis for calling them racists but that's how the scene was played out.
When confronted with the FACTS, the kid was trying to use a fake ID to purchase a bottle of wine and had two additional bottles under his coat, they deny that's the truth. The school denies they encouraged and supported the protests (even when presented emails to back that claim up).
They ruined a families reputation and business. There is no shame, rather they are worried about the lawsuit and the "chilling effect" it will have on free speech on college campuses. OBTW, College Campuses where opposing views are not allowed, simply declare it hate speech and move on.