Trump ordered Ukraine ‘quid pro quo’ through Giuliani, key witness Sondland testifies

[Dashinka 24,505]

1 hour ago, yuna628 said:

I also believe that Sonderland is lying, probably about a couple of things. I do not think he is as idiotic as he appeared and he knew exactly what was going on and knew he probably shouldn't have been doing it. He also participated in a massive security risk and probably should be removed from his post.

 

I do not believe it is appropriate for a President, ANY President to pressure a foreign government to dig up information on a political opponent in exchange for cash that Congress had already approved, while those people were dying on the battlefield. Its unethical and dishonorable. Is it impeachable? Probably not to you or maybe not to those who support him - but honestly I've said before how I feel a President should be conducting themselves and I'm tired of excuses when he does stuff wrong and refuses to admit it. I do not believe his behavior is simply a part of a job, and no President should be doing it ever.

Gotta love the Democrat talking points.  I guess when all the Ukranians were dying during the past Administration everything was fine.  Hey at least they got MREs and blankets.  As to Trump asking for the Ukraine to start taking care of the widespread corruption, what is wrong with that?  Heck, Obama and Biden did the same thing and bragged about it.  Were you calling for impeachment then?

[yuna628 9,676]

55 minutes ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

The impeachment isn't merely partisan, it's all for show. Even if one discards the farce that was the special counsel and looks at this situation anew, who in their right mind takes it seriously when hearings are rife with keeping people from calling key witnesses that can provide exculpatory testimony in hearings entirely driven by nonsensical 3rd party hearsay testimony? Who takes seriously when everything is staged, from the questions and answers, to the soliciting of emotional reactions? It's funny how leftists don't seem at all appalled, or perhaps even aware, that they're being toyed with by these hearings.

 

What made Trump have appeal after two failed attempts to enter the race is the very corruption Trump is facing now. Yet, the way the media, corrupt government employees, Democrats, and other NeverTrumpers are going about trying to rid of Trump is to stage corrupt PR campaigns with abuses of government power against him?

 

If it wasn't so aggravatingly dumb, a waste of time, and destabilizing to US society, I'd find this amusing. No doubt, it's a fantastic case study on psychological manipulation. While American society is increasingly compromised, the left, I find, are so compromised, they are clueless. They're hysterical about climate, hysterical about Trump, and seem entirely oblivious that this hysteria is fabricated by people taking advantage of their gullibility and childish desire for confirmation bias/getting their way.

Impeachment is a serious process and as such should be taken seriously, for however partisan it may be. The rest of this is all heading into conspiracy theory land, of which you are free to believe, but I simply cannot entertain. This President would be a lot better trusted if he was willing to admit his mistakes and correct them. There's hysteria everywhere, and it does not escape those in Trump's camp, who aren't, by the way, actually even genuinely defending him because they believe his actions are fine. And so too, his defense, is all for show.

19 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

I specifically said that Congress could override an EO via legislation and inferred that a veto override would be possible.  Basically, the same thing you said.  However, they cannot simply negate an EO by fiat.   I never said the President was a king, and the Executive Branch is accountable to Congress, but Congress does not have total oversight over the President particularly with respect to handling foreign policy.

Well I didn't say they have total oversight with regard to foreign policy. But when they say money needs to go somewhere, it better go somewhere. Furthermore foreign policy and quid pro quos aren't the same thing.

 

11 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

Gotta love the Democrat talking points.  I guess when all the Ukranians were dying during the past Administration everything was fine.  Hey at least they got MREs and blankets.  As to Trump asking for the Ukraine to start taking care of the widespread corruption, what is wrong with that?  Heck, Obama and Biden did the same thing and bragged about it.  Were you calling for impeachment then?

Except I'm not a Democrat and Trump wasn't 'asking' he was quid pro quoing. It doesn't matter how many ways his supporters desperately try and 'frame it' 're-frame it' or 'deflect'. Demanding a foreign government investigate your political opponent is unAmerican, unethical, wrong, illegal, and downright pathetic. Maybe even a little lazy too. If he wants to do oppo research, he has enough money at his disposal to look at it himself... but of course he wouldn't want to portray himself as investigating his opponents directly. Why that might just seem so stinkin' dirty. No, he'd rather demand a country desperate for assistance do it, or else.. and hope no one found out about it. I really wish defenders could go step away from alternate realities and back to a better defense of ''it not being wrong'' to ''my client is too stupid to know it was wrong, he's new at this, please forgive him..'' The constantly shifting narratives and pretzel twisting over at the Hill is getting embarrassing. They don't even believe what they are being forced to say.

[Dashinka 24,505]

1 minute ago, yuna628 said:

Impeachment is a serious process and as such should be taken seriously, for however partisan it may be. The rest of this is all heading into conspiracy theory land, of which you are free to believe, but I simply cannot entertain. This President would be a lot better trusted if he was willing to admit his mistakes and correct them. There's hysteria everywhere, and it does not escape those in Trump's camp, who aren't, by the way, actually even genuinely defending him because they believe his actions are fine. And so too, his defense, is all for show.

Well I didn't say they have total oversight with regard to foreign policy. But when they say money needs to go somewhere, it better go somewhere. Furthermore foreign policy and quid pro quos aren't the same thing.

 

Except I'm not a Democrat and Trump wasn't 'asking' he was quid pro quoing. It doesn't matter how many ways his supporters desperately try and 'frame it' 're-frame it' or 'deflect'. Demanding a foreign government investigate your political opponent is unAmerican, unethical, wrong, illegal, and downright pathetic. Maybe even a little lazy too. If he wants to do oppo research, he has enough money at his disposal to look at it himself... but of course he wouldn't want to portray himself as investigating his opponents directly. Why that might just seem so stinkin' dirty. No, he'd rather demand a country desperate for assistance do it, or else.. and hope no one found out about it. I really wish defenders could go step away from alternate realities and back to a better defense of ''it not being wrong'' to ''my client is too stupid to know it was wrong, he's new at this, please forgive him..'' The constantly shifting narratives and pretzel twisting over at the Hill is getting embarrassing. They don't even believe what they are being forced to say.

So Biden demanding a person is fired presumably due to corruption in order to get aid was not a quid pro quo?  For the record, I always maintained that Congress has the power of the purse and oversight on spending by the Executive Branch, this is why department heads regularly come before Congress for hearings.  I don't see the President in front of Congress regularly with the exception of the State of the Union.  As to if there was a quid pro quo or not, the fact of the matter is the Ukraine received the aid, got their meeting and didn't have to do anything for it which seems more consistent with what President Trump directly said to Sondland.  But by all means, he needs to be impeached because he had impure thoughts and some people had other opinions or made presumptions. 

[90DayFinancier 910]

18 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

Gotta love the Democrat talking points.  I guess when all the Ukranians were dying during the past Administration everything was fine.  Hey at least they got MREs and blankets.  As to Trump asking for the Ukraine to start taking care of the widespread corruption, what is wrong with that?  Heck, Obama and Biden did the same thing and bragged about it.  Were you calling for impeachment then?

We covered the time line of military support in the Ukraine on another thread and you should be aware by now that is not true. Wether congress and the President did enough at that time is another case. 

 

Obama and Biden didn't do the same thing. There was no support for Obama's reelection, and neither one was running. 

 

 

 

 

 

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

1 minute ago, yuna628 said:

Impeachment is a serious process and as such should be taken seriously, for however partisan it may be. The rest of this is all heading into conspiracy theory land, of which you are free to believe, but I simply cannot entertain. This President would be a lot better trusted if he was willing to admit his mistakes and correct them. There's hysteria everywhere, and it does not escape those in Trump's camp, who aren't, by the way, actually even genuinely defending him because they believe his actions are fine. And so too, his defense, is all for show.

Well I didn't say they have total oversight with regard to foreign policy. But when they say money needs to go somewhere, it better go somewhere. Furthermore foreign policy and quid pro quos aren't the same thing.

 

Except I'm not a Democrat and Trump wasn't 'asking' he was quid pro quoing. It doesn't matter how many ways his supporters desperately try and 'frame it' 're-frame it' or 'deflect'. Demanding a foreign government investigate your political opponent is unAmerican, unethical, wrong, illegal, and downright pathetic. Maybe even a little lazy too. If he wants to do oppo research, he has enough money at his disposal to look at it himself... but of course he wouldn't want to portray himself as investigating his opponents directly. Why that might just seem so stinkin' dirty. No, he'd rather demand a country desperate for assistance do it, or else.. and hope no one found out about it. I really wish defenders could go step away from alternate realities and back to a better defense of ''it not being wrong'' to ''my client is too stupid to know it was wrong, he's new at this, please forgive him..'' The constantly shifting narratives and pretzel twisting over at the Hill is getting embarrassing. They don't even believe what they are being forced to say.

His defense isn't all for show, because impeachment isn't solely considered a political endeavor, if there was any actual proof, the Republicans would be glad to rid themselves of Trump and deal with President Pence instead. Trump was never liked by the Republican establishment, and they are rife in the Senate. Without credibility of proof, Republican Senators voting to remove Trump would be committing political suicide. So, the concept of fairness isn't solely a concept in legal terms saved specifically for a legal process, it's part of a thought process that governs society and basic fairness every person is owed.

 

The only conspiracy thinking here is your assertions of "demanding they investigate his political opponent". This is an exaggeration, for obvious reasons.

 

Also, if the idea is to tackle corruption, the act of a Vice President threatening someone to fire another investigating a company his son gets paid by (and only got the job because of his relation to the VP) goes straight to the heart of corruption. The idea that this is a quid pro quo assumes that because Trump stands to benefit from it that he's the only one who benefits from it. America benefits from knowing what happened, particularly because this involves our government officials, our taxpayer money. "Quid pro quo" is unequivocally something that is solely a benefit to the person receiving it. In this type of comical exaggerating logic, the President can't do anything that benefits the United States because as an American he benefits from it. Doesn't pass a logic test any way you spin it. 

 

[Dashinka 24,505]

1 minute ago, 90DayFinancier said:

We covered the time line of military support in the Ukraine on another thread and you should be aware by now that is not true. Wether congress and the President did enough at that time is another case. 

 

Obama and Biden didn't do the same thing. There was no support for Obama's reelection, and neither one was running. 

 

 

 

 

 

It does not matter what the reason, it was clearly a quid pro quo (this for that).  But enough said, draft up the articles, vote and send this over to the Senate.

[90DayFinancier 910]

22 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

It does not matter what the reason, it was clearly a quid pro quo (this for that).  But enough said, draft up the articles, vote and send this over to the Senate.

Yikes. You keep using that phrase but you demonstrate that you don't understand that the concept of personal gain. If Trump got anything of value from the Ukraine and put is the us Treasury, it would not be a bribe and asking for it would not be extortion. Because investigation of Biden was clearly in his personal political interest, it meets the definition of Extortion.  It was not his money to withhold. 

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,370]

27 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

It does not matter what the reason, it was clearly a quid pro quo (this for that).  But enough said, draft up the articles, vote and send this over to the Senate.

I wonder if we have even given a massive military aid package in the history of the US, that did not have conditions 

[Dashinka 24,505]

4 minutes ago, 90DayFinancier said:

Yikes. You keep using that phrase but you demonstrate that you don't understand that the concept of personal gain. If Trump got anything of value from the Ukraine and put is the us Treasury, it would not be a bribe and asking for it would not be extortion. Because investigation of Biden was clearly in his personal political interest, it meets the definition of Extortion.  It was not his money to withhold. 

How do you know Obama/Biden did not get anything of value (political or personal) out of it?  Maybe they were doing it for the benefit of their Party, who knows?  I have my opinion, just like all the Schiff witnesses.  But basically you are saying that all President's simply hand over money that Congress appropriates without asking for anything?  I tend to think otherwise, and by the way, who of the Schiff circus, ever actually accused President Trump of bribery?  I know the Democrats focus grouped that term and started using it instead of quid pro quo, but each of the "witnesses" when asked directly never actually accused the President of bribery.  Again, regardless, get on with this partisan circus and send it over to the Senate. 

8 minutes ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

I wonder if we have even given a massive military aid package in the history of the US, that did not have conditions 

Nope, when Congress appropriates it, the check is cut and delivered.  Not really sure why we even need a President.

[90DayFinancier 910]

8 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

How do you know Obama/Biden did not get anything of value (political or personal) out of it? 

Maybe they were doing it for the benefit of their Party, who knows? 

Well if you have evidence of a crime....

8 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

 

 

8 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

 

I have my opinion, just like all the Schiff witnesses. 

 

But you were not in the meetings, phone calls in in at least one case the dinner where the president of the Free world yelled over a phone for everyone to hear.

 

 

But basically you are saying that all President's simply hand over money that Congress appropriates without asking for anything?

 

Not for personal gain. Asked and answered.

How do you know Obama/Biden did not get anything of value (political or personal) out of it?  Maybe they were doing it for the benefit of their Party, who knows?  I have my opinion, just like all the Schiff witnesses.  But basically you are saying that all President's simply hand over money that Congress appropriates without asking for anything? 

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

34 minutes ago, 90DayFinancier said:

Yikes. You keep using that phrase but you demonstrate that you don't understand that the concept of personal gain. If Trump got anything of value from the Ukraine and put is the us Treasury, it would not be a bribe and asking for it would not be extortion. Because investigation of Biden was clearly in his personal political interest, it meets the definition of Extortion.  It was not his money to withhold. 

Investigating the Biden issue isn't solely in Trump's personal interest, nor his sole personal gain. 

 

The very legislation that authorized this aid loan money specifically was premised upon the President championing and providing assistance to "anti-corruption" efforts, tying anti-corruption efforts to the receiving of aid. A US Vice President threatening someone to fire a prosecutor investigating a company his son is getting paid for (and got this job because of his dad's position) has direct relevance to corruption. 

 

It is the President's job, as the Chief Executive, to decide via his foreign policy if Ukraine's actions are consistent with the stated objective. He is the chief stakeholder of the way the money is delivered. This isn't rocket science.

Edited November 22, 2019 by Burnt Reynolds

[Dashinka 24,505]

1 minute ago, 90DayFinancier said:

Well if you have evidence of a crime....

 

How do you know Obama/Biden did not get anything of value (political or personal) out of it?  Maybe they were doing it for the benefit of their Party, who knows?  I have my opinion, just like all the Schiff witnesses.  But basically you are saying that all President's simply hand over money that Congress appropriates without asking for anything? 

I a still waiting to hear the evidence of a crime that Trump actually did?  Campaign finance?  I don’t remember that being discussed this week.  Bribery?  Only Nancy and Adam are pushing that well researched narrative.  Adam Schiff again said no one was above the law, and quite honestly that is the one thing I agree with him on, but it would be nice to know what law was broken.  We had a two plus year investigation by Mueller and his team of Democrat lawyers without an identified crime and we kept hearing we needed to investigate to determine the crime.  I know I am not a LEO or lawyer, but usually investigations begin with an identified crime.  Anyway, that turned out to be a bust.  Sure Trump boasted about being exonerated which was untrue since prosecutors do not do that, but nothing was found that could drive an indictment of Trump even when he does leave office.

 

Anyway, by the logic of Washington DC and especially the Democrats since November 2016, we do not need evidence of a crime to investigate Biden, the accusation should be enough to start a fishing investigation.  I guess we should do this from now on with all President-elects as I am sure anyone that gets to that point has skeletons that could be criminal.

[90DayFinancier 910]

1 hour ago, Bill & Katya said:

I a still waiting to hear the evidence of a crime that Trump actually did?  Campaign finance?  I don’t remember that being discussed this week.  Bribery?  Only Nancy and Adam are pushing that well researched narrative.  Adam Schiff again said no one was above the law, and quite honestly that is the one thing I agree with him on, but it would be nice to know what law was broken.  We had a two plus year investigation by Mueller and his team of Democrat lawyers without an identified crime and we kept hearing we needed to investigate to determine the crime.  I know I am not a LEO or lawyer, but usually investigations begin with an identified crime.  Anyway, that turned out to be a bust.  Sure Trump boasted about being exonerated which was untrue since prosecutors do not do that, but nothing was found that could drive an indictment of Trump even when he does leave office.

 

Anyway, by the logic of Washington DC and especially the Democrats since November 2016, we do not need evidence of a crime to investigate Biden, the accusation should be enough to start a fishing investigation.  I guess we should do this from now on with all President-elects as I am sure anyone that gets to that point has skeletons that could be criminal.

To my recollection, several Trump campaign officials are on probation, doing time or in the case of Roger Stone awaiting a sentence. Ironically, Manafort got in trouble, in part, with what and how he got money from the Ukraine.

[Dashinka 24,505]

15 minutes ago, 90DayFinancier said:

To my recollection, several Trump campaign officials are on probation, doing time or in the case of Roger Stone awaiting a sentence. Ironically, Manafort got in trouble, in part, with what and how he got money from the Ukraine.

With the exception of Manafort that was convicted of practices well before the election in part with help from the Ukraine trying to gain political favor with who everyone expected to win in 2016 (how many times did we hear that we should not turn to another country to investigate a USC the past several weeks), the rest were process crimes that happened during the investigation itself.  Regardless, they were found guilty and are serving their time with the exception of Flynn for some odd reason.  But with all that coming from Mueller, I don’t remember any indictments of President Trump.  I know one thing that whole thing did for me was to put a big sense of distrust of the government and their investigators.  
 

But in reality, that does not answer my question of what crime was Trump accused of committing?

 

Btw, I am still waiting for your take on Blumenauer’s actions in Oregon?

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

1 hour ago, Bill & Katya said:

I a still waiting to hear the evidence of a crime that Trump actually did?  Campaign finance?  I don’t remember that being discussed this week.  Bribery?  Only Nancy and Adam are pushing that well researched narrative.  Adam Schiff again said no one was above the law, and quite honestly that is the one thing I agree with him on, but it would be nice to know what law was broken.  We had a two plus year investigation by Mueller and his team of Democrat lawyers without an identified crime and we kept hearing we needed to investigate to determine the crime.  I know I am not a LEO or lawyer, but usually investigations begin with an identified crime.  Anyway, that turned out to be a bust.  Sure Trump boasted about being exonerated which was untrue since prosecutors do not do that, but nothing was found that could drive an indictment of Trump even when he does leave office.

 

Anyway, by the logic of Washington DC and especially the Democrats since November 2016, we do not need evidence of a crime to investigate Biden, the accusation should be enough to start a fishing investigation.  I guess we should do this from now on with all President-elects as I am sure anyone that gets to that point has skeletons that could be criminal.

The "crime" Trump committed is whatever answer gets the highest tally of responses from likely voters in a specific focus group.

 

This is basically what the non-impeachment impeachment is down to.