Sondland revises Quid Pro Quo testimony

[OKTexas]

What does this prove?
You can't figure it out, this isn't rocket science. Obviously you didn't read any of the links

So... you cannot tell me what is proven by the delay you claim..
Thanks.

Trump withholding the aid corroborates the story of the 3 witnesses, AND the text messages between Sondland and other Trump aids/ambassadors/Ukrainians. Trump withheld the aid because he wanted Zelensky to announce an investigation into his political rival.

Quote. The. Text.

It proves that Trump is hiding the official transcript of the Ukraine call because it has incriminating evidence in it

Fallacy: non seq
Please demonstrate the necessary relationship between putting the transcript on a "top secret" server and that transcript having incriminating evidence.

So... you cannot tell me what is proven by the delay you claim..
Thanks.

Hello I put it right there can you read? You are trying to be smart and clever, but you look stupid...

Quote. The. Text.

"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," Sondland said.
You need to read the articles, everything is right there, don't respond until you do. You look even stupider now.

Please demonstrate the necessary relationship between putting the transcript on a "top secret" server and that transcript having incriminating evidence.

Col Vindman, a man with credibility, has stated that the official call was different. Trump aid said it was unheard of to put these calls on the NICE server, why would they put it on the server? The most logical conclusion is that it contains incriminating evidence that Trump wants hidden, why not just release the official transcript then and disprove this? Why put this transcript on the NICE Server, which Trump aids said was unheard of?

You need to disprove my points, with links and quotes. You have done nothing and provided nothing to disprove anything I said, your failure to do so only strengthens the evidence.

So when did Ukraine release the anti-corruption statement?

.

They did not, and that is why the Ukraine aid was not released... until the Whistleblower complaint was made, which is highly highly suspicious. Vindman Sondland and Taylor have all verified this.

Great assumption, definitely grounds for impeachment. LMAO

.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Clearly you didn't see the news yesterday. Sondland said he "suddenly remembered" that the aid was held up because of the Quid Pro Quo...

The post you just replied to (#428) says otherwise, with direct quotes from the cited source.

It is presumed that he was worried about going to prison for perjury so he told the truth.

By you, without substantiation.

So your entire transcript is outdated and inaccurate.

My citation, from the post you just replied to (#428)
Sondland Transcript | Classified Information | Ukraine
Show this to be true.

I have provided numerous links with numerous quotes, you have provided nothing.

The post you just replied to (#428) proves your statement is a lie.

You have done nothing to disprove anything I said,

The post you just replied to (#428) proves your statement is a lie.

and you have done nothing to supply a logical explanation as to why Trump held up the aid for 7 months...

Onus is on you to prove your argument, not on anyone else to prove alternate theories.
Get busy.

Come correct with some facts son, then we can talk...

Feel free to re-read and meaningfully respond to the post you just replied to (#428), as it meets your challenge, in full.
Else, my work here is complete.

 

[M14 Shooter]

We know Sondland lied under oath. FOR TRUMP. And when he realized he was going to get caught, he retracted and changed his testimony.

You cannot cite sources and provide quotes to this effect.

His own words

Thank you for demonstrating you cannot cite sources and provide quotes to this effect.

 

[M14 Shooter]

M14 has not provided any evidence to explain any of the corroborated Quid Pro Quo evidence.

Look at you, thinking I have to disprove your claims, rather than you provide the proof for them.

I provided more than enough proof, of which you could not refute.

Post #428, which you replied to, proves your statement, above, to be a lie.

 

[The Banker]

They did not, and that is why the Ukraine aid was not released... until the Whistleblower complaint was made, which is highly highly suspicious. Vindman Sondland and Taylor have all verified this.

Except that they haven't.

Except they have, what is the problem here you are now lying because you can't accept stated fact?


1) "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," Sondland said.

2)
Vindman believed the existence of a quid pro quo was clear during a July 10 meeting between American and Ukrainian officials. In his opening statement, Vindman wrote that date is when US Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland told Ukrainian government officials that they would need to deliver "specific investigations in order to secure the meeting" with Trump that they so desired.
In a separate meeting of US officials immediately afterward, "Sondland emphasized the importance that Ukraine deliver the investigations into the 2016 election, the Bidens, and Burisma," Vindman testified.

3) "That was my clear understanding, security assistance money would not come until the president [of Ukraine] committed to pursue the investigation," Taylor said, according to the transcript.

BOOOMM!!!!!
Liar, you look stupid now.

 

[M14 Shooter]

We know Sondland lied under oath. FOR TRUMP. And when he realized he was going to get caught, he retracted and changed his testimony.

You cannot cite sources and provide quotes to this effect.

His own words, he said he suddenly remembered there was a Quid Pro Quo to avoid being charged with perjury...
You try to act like there isn;t rock solid evidence here, you have provided nothing to discredit any of this.

Republicans also want to believe that Trump is going to get re elected despite the facts.

Look at you - unable to support anything you say with quoted text from cited sources, so you try to change the subject.

 

[The Banker]

M14 has not provided any evidence to explain any of the corroborated Quid Pro Quo evidence.

Look at you, thinking I have to disprove your claims, rather than you provide the proof for them.

I provided more than enough proof, of which you could not refute.

Post #428, which you replied to, proves your statement, above, to be a lie.

It does nothing of the sort, in anyway shape or form.

 

[M14 Shooter]

They did not, and that is why the Ukraine aid was not released... until the Whistleblower complaint was made, which is highly highly suspicious. Vindman Sondland and Taylor have all verified this.

Except that they haven't.

Except they have, what is the problem here you are now lying because you can't accept stated fact?

These statements were addressed in post # 428.
When you actually read it and can meaningfully respond to it, let us know.

 

[sealybobo]

We know Sondland lied under oath. FOR TRUMP. And when he realized he was going to get caught, he retracted and changed his testimony.

You cannot cite sources and provide quotes to this effect.

His own words

Thank yo ufor demonstrating you cannot cite sources and provide quotes to this effect.

Stop it. Just stop. I'm not taking you seriously at all. LOL You're just being stupid.

You won't like any site I get my information from. You won't find any negative news about Trump on Fox, Rush, Breitbart, Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, etc....

Can you provide a source that says Trump is innocent? I google Trump is innocent and I find nothing

President Donald Trump has placed a heavy shroud of silence over the executive branch.

Under his orders, no witnesses from the State Department, the Defense Department, the Energy Department, the Department of Justice, the White House or any other executive agency will be allowed to testify under oath to Congress. It’s all shut down.

Likewise, no documents, no memos, no email or text-message exchanges will be made available to Congress as it considers impeachment.

That’s an odd thing to do if you’re innocent.

If you’re innocent, why would you keep all the copious evidence of your innocence locked away from Congress and the world? Why would you tell eyewitnesses to your innocence that they can’t utter a word about it? Why would federal judges feel it necessary to order you not to destroy evidence of this innocence?

The most obvious explanation is that you, in fact, are not innocent. The most obvious explanation is that you realize that your only hope of retaining office and any degree of public support is to hide as much evidence of your wrongdoing as possible, for as long as possible, using every desperate measure at your command.

In a letter to Congress this week, White House lawyers did just that.

“There is no basis for your inquiry,” those lawyers told Congress, condemning the investigation as “partisan and unconstitutional,” “constitutionally invalid,” “an unconstitutional exercise in political theater” and “illegitimate.”

Writing about a controversial phone call with the Ukrainian president, they claim that a rough transcript of that call proves it “was completely appropriate, that the President did nothing wrong, and that there is no basis for an impeachment inquiry.”

This would be the phone call in which the Ukrainian president begs Trump for permission to buy U.S.-made Javelin anti-tank missiles, which he needs to protect his country from Russian invasion. The very next words out of Trump’s mouth are fateful:

“I would like you to do us a favor, though…”

As Trump explains, that favor involves two investigations. First, he demands that Ukraine announce an investigation into a cockamamie far-right claim that it was Ukraine itself, not Russia, that hacked Democratic emails in the 2016 elections, and that Ukraine did so to help Democrats. Then, Trump says he also wants an investigation of Joe Biden, who is beating Trump by double-digits in most head-to-head polling.

A U.S. president, pressuring a vulnerable ally to investigate a political enemy, is a clearly impeachable act, and in subsequent comments to the press, Trump has repeatedly admitted to and even bragged about his crime. The evidence and testimony that he seeks to bar from Congress would only confirm that conclusion.

For the moment, though, we should focus on the fact that the president and his lawyers don’t get to decide whether there is a legitimate basis to an impeachment inquiry. Article 1, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution puts it clearly:

“The House of Representatives … shall have the sole power of impeachment.”

 

[The Banker]

We know Sondland lied under oath. FOR TRUMP. And when he realized he was going to get caught, he retracted and changed his testimony.

You cannot cite sources and provide quotes to this effect.

His own words, he said he suddenly remembered there was a Quid Pro Quo to avoid being charged with perjury...
You try to act like there isn;t rock solid evidence here, you have provided nothing to discredit any of this.

Republicans also want to believe that Trump is going to get re elected despite the facts.

Look at you - unable to support anything you say with quoted text from cited sources, so you try to change the subject.

1) SO how do you explain that Vindman, Sondland, and Taylor have all said that there was a Quid Pro Quo?

2) How do you explain the timeline for the aid not being released, then suddenly being released after the story broke,

3) How do you explain the fact that they put the official transcript on the NICE server, which is unheard of AND Vindman says what Trump released is inaccurate.

 

[M14 Shooter]

M14 has not provided any evidence to explain any of the corroborated Quid Pro Quo evidence.

Look at you, thinking I have to disprove your claims, rather than you provide the proof for them.

I provided more than enough proof, of which you could not refute.

Post #428, which you replied to, proves your statement, above, to be a lie.

It does nothing of the sort, in anyway shape or form.

Ah. You choose to defend your lies by lying to yourself.
Thank you for making it clear I need waste no more time on you.

 

[sealybobo]

M14 has not provided any evidence to explain any of the corroborated Quid Pro Quo evidence.

Look at you, thinking I have to disprove your claims, rather than you provide the proof for them.

I provided more than enough proof, of which you could not refute.

In the weeks to come, the House will almost certainly vote to impeach Trump, and among the articles of impeachment it will send to the Senate for trial will be an article explaining that Trump’s king-like refusal to allow any testimony before Congress or release any requested documents amounts to obstruction of justice.

If the Republican-led Senate rejects that particular article, if it decides that this extraordinary refusal to produce legally sought evidence is acceptable, then at that moment the very concept of congressional oversight as a check on the executive will die. If Congress cannot force the executive branch to honor its subpoenas, then our system of checks and balances is destroyed and all future presidents, Democrat and Republican, will be free to tell Congress to go to hell.

We are, in other words, in a full-blown constitutional crisis.

 

[The Banker]

They did not, and that is why the Ukraine aid was not released... until the Whistleblower complaint was made, which is highly highly suspicious. Vindman Sondland and Taylor have all verified this.

Except that they haven't.

Except they have, what is the problem here you are now lying because you can't accept stated fact?

These statements were addressed in post # 428.
When you actually read it and can meaningfully respond to it, let us know.

They were not. all 3 witnesses have said there was a Quid Pro Quo, you have offered nothing to discredit that in anyway shape or form.

 

[The Banker]

M14 has not provided any evidence to explain any of the corroborated Quid Pro Quo evidence.

Look at you, thinking I have to disprove your claims, rather than you provide the proof for them.

I provided more than enough proof, of which you could not refute.

Post #428, which you replied to, proves your statement, above, to be a lie.

It does nothing of the sort, in anyway shape or form.

Ah. You choose to defend your lies by lying to yourself.
Thank you for making it clear I need waste no more time on you.

Your surrender has been noted.
You have not provided anything or disproven anything I have said. How can you disprove the statements made directly from the witnesses???

Explain this:

1) "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," Sondland said.

2)
Vindman believed the existence of a quid pro quo was clear during a July 10 meeting between American and Ukrainian officials. In his opening statement, Vindman wrote that date is when US Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland told Ukrainian government officials that they would need to deliver "specific investigations in order to secure the meeting" with Trump that they so desired.
In a separate meeting of US officials immediately afterward, "Sondland emphasized the importance that Ukraine deliver the investigations into the 2016 election, the Bidens, and Burisma," Vindman testified.

3) "That was my clear understanding, security assistance money would not come until the president [of Ukraine] committed to pursue the investigation," Taylor said, according to the transcript.

 

[M14 Shooter]

In the weeks to come, the House will almost certainly vote to impeach Trump, and among the articles of impeachment it will send to the Senate for trial will be an article explaining that Trump’s king-like refusal to allow any testimony before Congress or release any requested documents amounts to obstruction of justice.

There's no doubt the house will impeach Trump,. for any end every little bit of nonsense it can dream up.

If the Republican-led Senate rejects that particular article, if it decides that this extraordinary refusal to produce legally sought evidence is acceptable, then at that moment the very concept of congressional oversight as a check on the executive will die.

Like in 1998, where it failed to convict Clinton for the federal felonies of perjury and obstruction, because Democrats decided said federal felonies did not rise to the level of impeachable offenses?

 

[OKTexas]

M14 has not provided any evidence to explain any of the corroborated Quid Pro Quo evidence.

Look at you, thinking I have to disprove your claims, rather than you provide the proof for them.

I provided more than enough proof, of which you could not refute.

In the weeks to come, the House will almost certainly vote to impeach Trump, and among the articles of impeachment it will send to the Senate for trial will be an article explaining that Trump’s king-like refusal to allow any testimony before Congress or release any requested documents amounts to obstruction of justice.

If the Republican-led Senate rejects that particular article, if it decides that this extraordinary refusal to produce legally sought evidence is acceptable, then at that moment the very concept of congressional oversight as a check on the executive will die. If Congress cannot force the executive branch to honor its subpoenas, then our system of checks and balances is destroyed and all future presidents, Democrat and Republican, will be free to tell Congress to go to hell.

We are, in other words, in a full-blown constitutional crisis.

What will likely happen is the senate will allow the house commies present their bullshit, then a motion to dismiss will be entertained, voted on and granted. You can't scream impeachment for 3 years, try to invent shit from whole cloth an expect the senate to take it seriously. Put that in your constitutional crisis pipe and smoke it.

.

 

[Lesh]

In the weeks to come, the House will almost certainly vote to impeach Trump, and among the articles of impeachment it will send to the Senate for trial will be an article explaining that Trump’s king-like refusal to allow any testimony before Congress or release any requested documents amounts to obstruction of justice.

There's no doubt the house will impeach Trump,. for any end every little bit of nonsense it can dream up.

If the Republican-led Senate rejects that particular article, if it decides that this extraordinary refusal to produce legally sought evidence is acceptable, then at that moment the very concept of congressional oversight as a check on the executive will die.

Like in 1998, where it failed to convict Clinton for the federal felonies of perjury and obstruction, because Democrats decided said federal felonies did not rise to the level of impeachable offenses?

They failed to convict Clinton for lying about a BJ?

Oh...

 

[Lesh]

M14 has not provided any evidence to explain any of the corroborated Quid Pro Quo evidence.

Look at you, thinking I have to disprove your claims, rather than you provide the proof for them.

I provided more than enough proof, of which you could not refute.

In the weeks to come, the House will almost certainly vote to impeach Trump, and among the articles of impeachment it will send to the Senate for trial will be an article explaining that Trump’s king-like refusal to allow any testimony before Congress or release any requested documents amounts to obstruction of justice.

If the Republican-led Senate rejects that particular article, if it decides that this extraordinary refusal to produce legally sought evidence is acceptable, then at that moment the very concept of congressional oversight as a check on the executive will die. If Congress cannot force the executive branch to honor its subpoenas, then our system of checks and balances is destroyed and all future presidents, Democrat and Republican, will be free to tell Congress to go to hell.

We are, in other words, in a full-blown constitutional crisis.

What will likely happen is the senate will allow the house commies present their bullshit, then a motion to dismiss will be entertained, voted on and granted. You can't scream impeachment for 3 years, try to invent shit from whole cloth an expect the senate to take it seriously. Put that in your constitutional crisis pipe and smoke it.

.

Moscow Mitch has already said he has made up his mind to let the Orange Criminal off the hook...with out seeing any of the evidence

 

[OKTexas]

M14 has not provided any evidence to explain any of the corroborated Quid Pro Quo evidence.

Look at you, thinking I have to disprove your claims, rather than you provide the proof for them.

I provided more than enough proof, of which you could not refute.

In the weeks to come, the House will almost certainly vote to impeach Trump, and among the articles of impeachment it will send to the Senate for trial will be an article explaining that Trump’s king-like refusal to allow any testimony before Congress or release any requested documents amounts to obstruction of justice.

If the Republican-led Senate rejects that particular article, if it decides that this extraordinary refusal to produce legally sought evidence is acceptable, then at that moment the very concept of congressional oversight as a check on the executive will die. If Congress cannot force the executive branch to honor its subpoenas, then our system of checks and balances is destroyed and all future presidents, Democrat and Republican, will be free to tell Congress to go to hell.

We are, in other words, in a full-blown constitutional crisis.

What will likely happen is the senate will allow the house commies present their bullshit, then a motion to dismiss will be entertained, voted on and granted. You can't scream impeachment for 3 years, try to invent shit from whole cloth an expect the senate to take it seriously. Put that in your constitutional crisis pipe and smoke it.

.

Moscow Mitch has already said he has made up his mind to let the Orange Criminal off the hook...with out seeing any of the evidence

People with policy disagreements, exaggerating their opinions about a phone call are not evidence.

.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

People with policy disagreements, exaggerating their opinions about a phone call are not evidence.

Of course, thats cultish nonsense, as the testimony of several public servants with infinitely more integrity than the orange turd is strong evidence. The cover up is also evidence.