Impeachment

black dog

black dog

Free America
That damn tiki bar keeps coming up.....
Decisions Decisions, in the spring do I get a new Intec pool or a tiki bar????
 
PsyOps

PsyOps

Pixelated
Chris0nllyn said:
Sondland was a huge Trump campaign donor and major fan of Trump's. You think that Schiff got to him and manipulated him into revising 6 portions of his entire testimony (I'd argue that, based on the appendix he provided, he did not do a 180).
Click to expand...

I'm not buying it. You're telling me that his original testimony that there was no quid pro quo, then "revising" that to say that there was a quid pro quo isn't a 180? What freaking world do you never-Trumpers live on? I believe Calvin (from Calvin and Hobbs) called it opposite world.
 
Chris0nllyn

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
PsyOps said:
I'm not buying it. You're telling me that his original testimony that there was no quid pro quo, then "revising" that to say that there was a quid pro quo isn't a 180? What freaking world do you never-Trumpers live on? I believe Calvin (from Calvin and Hobbs) called it opposite world.
Click to expand...

Sondland was a big donor and long time supporter of Republicans in general. Campaign donations are public record. There's a reason a guy who runs a Hotel company with no foreign policy experience became ambassador to the EU.

In 2016, the RNC published a list of "bundlers" who joined their operation.
Donald Trump and the Republican National Committee added more than 80 bundlers to their joint finance operation
Click to expand...
Here is the full list, as provided by the RNC:
...
Gordon Sondland, Oregon
...
Click to expand...
https://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/donald-trump-rnc-fundraising-225042

I just read through his original testimony and his Appendix and could not find where he revised his original testimony saying there was a quid pro quo. I can't find where he changed his stance on this. Can you help me out? I can search the document so a sentence or two would work.
 
PsyOps

PsyOps

Pixelated
Chris0nllyn said:
I just read through his original testimony and his Appendix and could not find where he revised his original testimony saying there was a quid pro quo. I can't find where he changed his stance on this. Can you help me out? I can search the document so a sentence or two would work.
Click to expand...

www.cnn.com

Key diplomat changes testimony and admits quid pro quo with Ukraine

In a significant reversal, a top US diplomat revised his testimony to impeachment investigators to admit a quid pro quo linking US aid to Ukraine with an investigation into President Donald Trump's political rival.
www.cnn.com www.cnn.com

"I now recall speaking individually with Mr. (Andriy) Yermak, where I said 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,"
Click to expand...

Sondland's original statement:
www.npr.org

READ: Deposition By Gordon Sondland, U.S. Ambassador To The European Union

Sondland, a Trump donor who became a comparative newcomer to diplomacy, has been described as central to the president's strategy to pressure Ukraine's government to conduct political investigations.
www.npr.org www.npr.org

"Sixth, to the best of my recollection, I do not recall any discussions with the White House on withholding U.S. security assistance from the Ukraine in return for assistance with the president’s 2020 reelection campaign."
Click to expand...

thehill.com

Sondland, Trump’s appointee, changes testimony to say there was clear quid pro quo

A top diplomat appointed by President Trump revised his testimony to lawmakers in the House’s impeachment inquiry, saying in the latest version that the president’s dealings with Ukraine…
thehill.com thehill.com

“After a large meeting, I now recall speaking individually with Mr. Yermak, where I 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,”
Click to expand...

Now you can quibble over wording, but the first states no quid pro quo; the second states quid pro quo. Democrats are using the second as indication of quid pro quo as a means to impeach Trump. You explain to them (the democrats) there isn't a flip on Sondland's original statement.
 
Yooper

Yooper

Up. Identified. Lase. Fire. On the way.
Chris0nllyn said:
(a) IMO, his opinion should not matter. I agree with that. How he felt something happened is irrelevant. However, (b) we know what he did specifically. And I think that is being overlooked because it's easy to say "see, it's an opinion/presumption
Click to expand...
(a) Yup.

(b) First, I'm assuming the "he" is Sondland. So with that in mund, that's not what I'm saying (if that's what others are saying). What I'm saying is that "his presumption which led to what he said" should NOT be equated with what Trump meant or said. That's conflating two different things. Also, it's what the pro-impeachment gang want you to believe: that both of these unrelated things are the same thing.

This shouldn't be a difficult thing for folks to understand. When your kid hears from your other kid about something you supposedly said/meant and then passes on that incorrect info (and the resultant mis-perception) as truth to your spouse and your spouse comes to you to ask "WTH?" Do you tell your spouse "Even though I never said that or meant that, yup"? Or do you say, "Nope, never said or even meant that. L'il Jimmie obviously got bad gouge from l'il Suzie"?

--- End of line (MCP)
 
Last edited:
vraiblonde

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
Yooper said:
This shouldn't be a difficult thing for folks to understand.
Click to expand...

It sure shouldn't. In a real court of law, a witness interpreting what someone meant is inadmissible. And when it comes from the "codes and dog whistle" people, it should definitely be disregarded.

But they do that all the time. Trump will say something in plain common English, and somehow they twist it around because "they know what he meant".
 
Chris0nllyn

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
PsyOps said:
www.cnn.com

Key diplomat changes testimony and admits quid pro quo with Ukraine

In a significant reversal, a top US diplomat revised his testimony to impeachment investigators to admit a quid pro quo linking US aid to Ukraine with an investigation into President Donald Trump's political rival.
www.cnn.com www.cnn.com

Sondland's original statement:
www.npr.org

READ: Deposition By Gordon Sondland, U.S. Ambassador To The European Union

Sondland, a Trump donor who became a comparative newcomer to diplomacy, has been described as central to the president's strategy to pressure Ukraine's government to conduct political investigations.
www.npr.org www.npr.org

thehill.com

Sondland, Trump’s appointee, changes testimony to say there was clear quid pro quo

A top diplomat appointed by President Trump revised his testimony to lawmakers in the House’s impeachment inquiry, saying in the latest version that the president’s dealings with Ukraine…
thehill.com thehill.com

Now you can quibble over wording, but the first states no quid pro quo; the second states quid pro quo. Democrats are using the second as indication of quid pro quo as a means to impeach Trump. You explain to them (the democrats) there isn't a flip on Sondland's original statement.
Click to expand...

I wonder if anyone will come along and complain about your sources. Surely @vraiblonde will come along and dismiss it because it's CNN.

Either way, I understand. He made numerous comments to the quid pro quo in his original testimony and the issue appears to be that remembered that he pulled Yermak aside to say that "US aid would likely not occur" until after the public statement.

And your belief is that Schiff got to him and made him change his reply? Not Taylor's statement as he stated?

Yooper said:
That's not what I'm saying (if that's what others are saying). What I'm saying is that "his presumption which led to what he said" should NOT be equated with what Trump meant or said.
Click to expand...

I agree. Which is probably why he stated that multiple times in his original testimony.

vraiblonde said:
It sure shouldn't. In a real court of law, a witness interpreting what someone meant is inadmissible. And when it comes from the "codes and dog whistle" people, it should definitely be disregarded.

But they do that all the time. Trump will say something in plain common English, and somehow they twist it around because "they know what he meant".
Click to expand...

Trump and "plain English" don't belong in a sentence. He's relied on people like you to interpret his words another way since day 1.
 
Yooper

Yooper

Up. Identified. Lase. Fire. On the way.
Chris0nllyn said:
Trump and "plain English" don't belong in a sentence. He's relied on people like you to interpret his words another way since day 1.
Click to expand...
I understand why you might say that. But I don't think that's at all true. If you're from that part of the world (i.e., NYC, Queens, LI) you know exactly what Trump is saying. Or, if you have a certain communication style what Trump says is quite easy to apprehend. And so forth.

I find it quite easy to understand him. On the other hand, wasn't quite as successful understanding senior Air Force officers. It is what it is; there's no such thing as a "universal communicator" (other than on Star Trek).

--- End of line (MCP)
 
Chris0nllyn

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
Yooper said:
I understand why you might say that. But I don't think that's at all true. If you're from that part of the world (i.e., NYC, Queens, LI) you know exactly what Trump is saying. Or, if you have a certain communication style what Trump says is quite easy to apprehend. And so forth.

I find it quite easy to understand him. On the other hand, wasn't quite as successful understanding senior Air Force officers. It is what it is; there's no such thing as a "universal communicator" (other than on Star Trek).

--- End of line (MCP)
Click to expand...

I'm not saying people don't understand him, I'm saying he doesn't speak in plain English.

He's repeatedly, despite being a "very smart man", struggles pronouncing basic words. His style of speaking is something different.

Maybe it's because he "hates teleprompters" or because he didn't have his glasses but "anonymous", "liberation", "armed forces", "absurd", etc. are basic words.



 
Yooper

Yooper

Up. Identified. Lase. Fire. On the way.
Yooper said:
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.
Click to expand...
Wrong thread, but added here b/c this is where the comment I'm "replying to" is (for those interested in this sort of stuff):
www.reuters.com

Germany commits to NATO spending goal by 2031 for first time

Germany will reach a NATO defense spending target by 2031, its defense minister said, missing a 2024 deadline agreed by the allies who are under heavy U.S. pressure to beef up their military budgets.
www.reuters.com www.reuters.com

The opening paragraphs:
Germany will reach a NATO defense spending target by 2031, its defense minister said, missing a 2024 deadline agreed by the allies who are under heavy U.S. pressure to beef up their military budgets.

Defense Minister Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer said Germany would spend 2% of its economic output on defense by 2031, belatedly reaching the goal set by NATO leaders at a 2014 summit, months after Russia’s annexation of Ukraine’s Crimea peninsula.

“NATO is and will remain the anchor of European security. But it is also clear that Europe must increase its own complementary ability to act,” Kramp-Karrenbauer told a private event to honor NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg on Wednesday night.

“This starts with the defense budget. We need (to spend) 1.5% by 2024 and 2% by 2031 at the latest,” she said, according to quotes of the speech provided by her office, the first time she has publicly committed to the target to an international audience and weeks before the next NATO summit on Dec. 4.

However, she said the target was not because “others are calling for it but because it is in the interest of our own security”.
Click to expand...

Anybody want to lay odds that this will happen (or not)? Or that this statement was nothing more than a "kick the can" statement to get past 2024 (or, at least, 2020)?

EDIT: Perhaps Germany's statement is on the level and has less to do with Trump and more to do with France's reaction to Trump. Only time will tell....

NATO is ‘brain dead’, France’s Macron says | One America News Network

Breaking News, Latest News and Current News from OANN.com. Breaking news and video. Latest Current News: U.S., World, Entertainment, Health, Business, Technology, Politics, Sports.
www.oann.com www.oann.com

--- End of line (MCP)
 
Last edited:
Midnightrider

Midnightrider

Well-Known Member
Yooper said:
(a) Yup.

(b) First, I'm assuming the "he" is Sondland. So with that in mund, that's not what I'm saying (if that's what others are saying). What I'm saying is that "his presumption which led to what he said" should NOT be equated with what Trump meant or said. That's conflating two different things. Also, it's what the pro-impeachment gang want you to believe: that both of these unrelated things are the same thing.

This shouldn't be a difficult thing for folks to understand. When your kid hears from your other kid about something you supposedly said/meant and then passes on that incorrect info (and the resultant mis-perception) as truth to your spouse and your spouse comes to you to ask "WTH?" Do you tell your spouse "Even though I never said that or meant that, yup"? Or do you say, "Nope, never said or even meant that. L'il Jimmie obviously got bad gouge from l'il Suzie"?

--- End of line (MCP)
Click to expand...
where do you think Sondland got his understanding that trump was holding the aid for the announcement?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top