Impeachment

[This_person]

I read the amendment. It’s pretty clear that Sondland has tied the public announcement to the aid. How can you deny that?

The fact that it is his opinion vice a fact kind of makes that an opinion and not a fact, doesn't it?

 

[Midnightrider]

The fact that it is his opinion vice a fact kind of makes that an opinion and not a fact, doesn't it?

It is a fact that he says on sept 1 he told Ukraine that the aid was contingent on the public announcement. No opinion, a fact that was supported by two other witnesses.

 

[Yooper]

I read the amendment. It’s pretty clear that Sondland has tied the public announcement to the aid. How can you deny that?

Here's how. From Sondland's statement:

“I always believed that suspending aid to Ukraine was ill-advised, although I did not know (and still do not know) when, why, or by whom the aid was suspended. However, by the beginning of September 2019, and in the absence of any credible explanation for the suspension of aid, I presumed that the aid suspension had become linked to the proposed anti-corruption statement,” Amb. Sondland said.

“As I said in my prepared testimony, security aid to Ukraine was in our vital national interest and should not have been delayed for any reason. And it would have been natural for me to have voiced what I had presumed to Ambassador Taylor, Senator Johnson, the Ukrainians, and Mr. Morrison.”

You want to say "tied"? Fine. But then don't forget that his tying was a PRESUMPTION. We would all be better off if presumptions (i.e., opinions) weren't presented as facts (i.e., first-hand knowledge).

--- End of line (MCP)

 

[vraiblonde]

The fact that it is his opinion vice a fact kind of makes that an opinion and not a fact, doesn't it?

Here's how. From Sondland's statement:


You want to say "tied"? Fine. But then don't forget that his tying was a PRESUMPTION. We would all be better off if presumptions (i.e., opinions) weren't presented as facts (i.e., first-hand knowledge).

--- End of line (MCP)

But...but...MR's handlers said the guy KNEW all of this! They said Trump was guilty and going to prison! They said so!!!! :

I don't know how you guys stand this nonsense. Just this brief exchange with our resident True Beliebers today made me want to take a shower and immerse myself in some Seinfeld reruns.

I'll wait until there are formal public hearings so I can get the whole thing and not just the bits and pieces Adam Schiff wants me to have.

 

[This_person]

It is a fact that he says on sept 1 he told Ukraine that the aid was contingent on the public announcement. No opinion, a fact that was supported by two other witnesses.

Except, that's not what he said. He said he thought it was contingent, not that it was.

Either way, so what? Why is it bad to have a president discuss conditions on aid to a foreign leader, when those conditions are about American justice?

 

[This_person]

Here's how. From Sondland's statement:


You want to say "tied"? Fine. But then don't forget that his tying was a PRESUMPTION. We would all be better off if presumptions (i.e., opinions) weren't presented as facts (i.e., first-hand knowledge).

--- End of line (MCP)

But...but...MR's handlers said the guy KNEW all of this! They said Trump was guilty and going to prison! They said so!!!! :

I don't know how you guys stand this nonsense. Just this brief exchange with our resident True Beliebers today made me want to take a shower and immerse myself in some Seinfeld reruns.

I'll wait until there are formal public hearings so I can get the whole thing and not just the bits and pieces Adam Schiff wants me to have.

Spanker has shifted the narrative from the aid to the announcement of the investigation. They've lost on the aid, so now it's the request of the announcement.

 

[The Boss]

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/tr...ine-directly-ties-trump-quid-pro-quo-n1077716 clock ticking away...............................................


Top diplomat in Ukraine Bill Taylor directly ties Trump to quid pro quo
"That was my clear understanding, that security assistance money would not come until the president (of Ukraine) committed to pursue" investigations, Bill Taylor told Congress.

 

[GURPS]

yeah ok Sapidus

 

[Hijinx]

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/tr...ine-directly-ties-trump-quid-pro-quo-n1077716 clock ticking away...............................................


Top diplomat in Ukraine Bill Taylor directly ties Trump to quid pro quo
"That was my clear understanding, that security assistance money would not come until the president (of Ukraine) committed to pursue" investigations, Bill Taylor told Congress.

His understanding, Again More Supposition.

 

[Midnightrider]

Here's how. From Sondland's statement:


You want to say "tied"? Fine. But then don't forget that his tying was a PRESUMPTION. We would all be better off if presumptions (i.e., opinions) weren't presented as facts (i.e., first-hand knowledge).

--- End of line (MCP)

He says he told Yemenik that the aid was tied to the announcement on sept 1. That’s a fact. As I said the only question is if you want to believe Sondland was acting on his own authority. Sondland next round of testimony is going to be pretty telling.

 

[This_person]

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/tr...ine-directly-ties-trump-quid-pro-quo-n1077716 clock ticking away...............................................


Top diplomat in Ukraine Bill Taylor directly ties Trump to quid pro quo
"That was my clear understanding, that security assistance money would not come until the president (of Ukraine) committed to pursue" investigations, Bill Taylor told Congress.

yep, he clearly had an assumption.

Let us know when he has proof of the claim instead of reading a Politico article and going "hey, I bet that's right".

 

[This_person]

He says he told Yemenik that the aid was tied to the announcement on sept 1. That’s a fact. As I said the only question is if you want to believe Sondland was acting on his own authority. Sondland next round of testimony is going to be pretty telling.

Do you believe someone whose testimony has changed already has credibility?

 

[The Boss]

 

[BernieP]

Right, so nothing nefarious like V is insisting. Which means there was a QPQ of aid for an announcement of an investigation into Biden. That is his amended testimony

Actually it wasn't just Biden, they were pressing the Ukraine for changes and to demonstrate a crackdown on corruption, they asked for help investigating what they believe was Ukrainians, not Russians, hacking and mucking in the 2016 elections.
Biden was brought in because Joe is on record, actually a recording, bragging about how he had the prosecutor removed.
They wanted to know if that was true, did the former president bow to the wishes of the VP in exchange for aid.
Because he's running for office doesn't mean they should let the gas bag pass.
Oh, that's right, it will be Trump collusion with the Ukraine that causes Biden to lose, not his being a dolt and flying his son around the world.
Talk about QPQ, Dad takes him to the Ukraine and he get's 50K a month, dad takes him to China and he seals a huge deal there.
Wow, coincidences or what. Just one lucky **** up.

By the way, want some more coincidences.

'Coup has started,' whistleblower's attorney said in 2017 posts calling for impeachment

Mark Zaid, one of the attorneys representing the intelligence community whistleblower at the center of the Democrats' ongoing impeachment inquiry, tweeted conspicuously in January 2017 that a "coup has started" and that "impeachment will follow ultimately."

Then, in July 2017, Zaid remarked, "I predict @CNN will play a key role in @realDonaldTrump not finishing out his full term as president." Also that month, Zaid tweeted, "We will get rid of him, and this country is strong enough to survive even him and his supporters."

Amid a slew of impeachment-related posts, Zaid assured his Twitter followers that "as one falls, two more will take their place," apparently referring to Trump administration employees who defy the White House. Zaid promised that the "coup" would occur in "many steps."

Wait, I know, it's FoxNews quoting Twitter, of course CNN and the other networks won't cover it.

January 2017, days after the inauguration.
Almost echoing the words of those two FBI lovebird, Remember Lisa Page and Peter Strzok when they alluded to a fall back plan.

So let's revisit the origins of the latest get Trump out of office because Hillary Clinton was robbed.

For any American who wants an answer sooner, there are just five words, among the thousands of suggestive texts Page and Strzok exchanged, that you should read.

That passage was transmitted on May 19, 2017. “There’s no big there there,” Strzok texted.

The date of the text long has intrigued investigators: It is two days after Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein named special counsel Robert Mueller to oversee an investigation into alleged collusion between Trump and the Russia campaign.

Since the text was turned over to Congress, investigators wondered whether it referred to the evidence against the Trump campaign.

This month, they finally got the chance to ask. Strzok declined to say — but Page, during a closed-door interview with lawmakers, confirmed in the most pained and contorted way that the message in fact referred to the quality of the Russia case, according to multiple eyewitnesses.

The admission is deeply consequential. It means Rosenstein unleashed the most awesome powers of a special counsel to investigate an allegation that the key FBI officials, driving the investigation for 10 months beforehand, did not think was “there.”

By the time of the text and Mueller’s appointment, the FBI’s best counterintelligence agents had had plenty of time to dig. They knowingly used a dossier funded by Hillary Clinton’s campaign — which contained uncorroborated allegations — to persuade the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court to issue a warrant to monitor Trump campaign adviser Carter Page (no relation to Lisa Page).

They sat on Carter Page’s phones and emails for nearly six months without getting evidence that would warrant prosecuting him. The evidence they had gathered was deemed so weak that their boss, then-FBI Director James Comey, was forced to admit to Congress after being fired by Trump that the core allegation remained substantially uncorroborated.

In other words, they had a big nothing burger. And, based on that empty-calorie dish, Rosenstein authorized the buffet menu of a special prosecutor that has cost America millions of dollars and months of political strife.

The work product Strzok created to justify the collusion probe now has been shown to be inferior: A Clinton-hired contractor produced multiple documents accusing Trump of wrongdoing during the election; each was routed to the FBI through a different source or was used to seed news articles with similar allegations that further built an uncorroborated public narrative of Trump-Russia collusion. Most troubling, the FBI relied on at least one of those news stories to justify the FISA warrant against Carter Page.

 

[Yooper]

He says he told Yemenik that the aid was tied to the announcement on sept 1. That’s a fact. As I said the only question is if you want to believe Sondland was acting on his own authority. Sondland next round of testimony is going to be pretty telling.

Stipulated; Sondland told Yemenil.

But the key point is that his telling was based on his PRESUMPTION of what he THOUGHT (though did not KNOW) was going on.

As we say in Russian: Всё. Ничего больше. ("That's it. Nothing more.")

--- End of line (MCP)

 

[Yooper]

'Coup has started,' whistleblower's attorney said in 2017 posts calling for impeachment

Yeah, saw that earlier today, too. Doesn't help the impeachment gang's cause. Not one (bleach)bit.

--- End of line (MCP)

 

[vraiblonde]

Anyway, the end of the story is that US aid always comes with a price tag of some form. The Democrats can convince their bots that this is UNPRECEDENTED!!! but the FACT is that there are always conditions on getting our money.

They can also say stupid things like "Trump wanted the Ukrainians to dig dirt on his political opponent!! " but the FACT is that Trump was asking them for help investigating criminal activity and election tampering. It's not Trump's fault that Joe and his shitbag kid are criminals.

 

[Yooper]

Anyway, the end of the story is that US aid always comes with a price tag of some form.

Absolutely, 100%, without-a-doubt true. Always was the case, is currently the case, always will be the case.

===============================================

Boring anecdote follows....

What was "fun" to watch during my time doing that sort of stuff (i.e., military security assistance) was watching how the host government often did what they could to get the $$$, but then reneged on what they were supposed to do to get the $$$ (after they got the $$$). The reasons why were often hilarious in their bald-faced lie-ery.

We, in the embassy, would often recommend we change our tune and drop the aid $$$ if the host government wouldn't keep their side of the bargain. But then the howling would begin in DC about "influence," blah, blah. Often what we came to find out was that folks' portfolios were threatened. And when the DC crowd starts worrying about their careers, dreams of glory, post-government service employment you knew that the aid would just keep coming (positive results or otherwise).

I will admit that sometimes there were no actual goals to the foreign aid other than it being a "retainer" (i.e., to keep the country from soliciting "donations" from the other side). Nothing necessarily wrong with that (often cheaper than going to war), but the fictions DC were able to create to justify what was otherwise just a bribe were "wonderful" to behold.

--- End of line (MCP)

 

[vraiblonde]

Boring anecdote follows....

I didn't think that was boring at all. What's boring is listening to dumb people who don't know how things work sit around parroting bullshit talking points fed to them by corrupt ahole politicians. It's doubly boring when they peddle that trash, then INSIST!! that they are "moderate" or "nonpartisan".

Yawn yawn yawn.

 

[Midnightrider]

Stipulated; Sondland told Yemenil.

But the key point is that his telling was based on his PRESUMPTION of what he THOUGHT (though did not KNOW) was going on.

As we say in Russian: Всё. Ничего больше. ("That's it. Nothing more.")

--- End of line (MCP)

Maybe if you read his testimony in a vacuum, but not with all the other info and actions.
since he was reluctant to remember this conversation that we can now stipulate happened, I think it’s a safe bet that he has more to tell. I don’t believe for a second that Sondland had this conversation based on ‘presumptions’.