Sondland putting the nail in the coffin

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

The left sees zero connection
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

But we're the ones with our heads in the sand.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

But we're the ones with our heads in the sand.

You should pull them out

Imagine a preeminent White House official who is unqualified, incompetent, and contemptuous of the law. Or who conceals his contacts with foreign officials, is targeted for exploitation by foreign intelligence services because of his naïveté and lack of ethics, and is deemed a security risk by his own government.

https://thebulwark.com/the-crown-prince-of-trumpistan/
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Hill told Sondland she was frustrated he wasn’t looping in the NSC on his Ukraine efforts.

He replied: “But I’m briefing the president. I’m briefing chief of staff Mulvaney. I'm briefing Secretary Pompeo. And I’ve talked to Ambassador Bolton. Who else do I have to deal with?"
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Got Stripers]

Keep the faith, your liar and chief will need every vote.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

Keep the faith, your liar and chief will need every vote.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you don’t get it. i’m the opposite of
an ideologue, i’m not
blinded by what i’m rooting for. Just watching what happens. Look at Trumps fundraising. if you’re comfortable that the progressive candidates ( and other then biden, that’s all that’s left) will resonate in middle America, that’s your right.

last week, another right wing trumplican warned that the field
of democratic candidates would
do well to come back to the middle, that they were too far to the left for most americans. His name was Barack Obama. But you know
better.

from where i sit, the democrats look like they’re trying to get him re elected.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

you don’t get it. i’m the opposite of
an ideologue, i’m not
blinded by what i’m rooting for. Just watching what happens. Look at Trumps fundraising. if you’re comfortable that the progressive candidates ( and other then biden, that’s all that’s left) will resonate in middle America, that’s your right.

last week, another right wing trumplican warned that the field
of democratic candidates would
do well to come back to the middle, that they were too far to the left for most americans. His name was Barack Obama. But you know
better.

from where i sit, the democrats look like they’re trying to get him re elected.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I didn’t suggest the Democrats don’t need to put somebody who can win, I suggested even with who probably will win run against Trump, he can’t afford to lose a single vote.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

I didn’t suggest the Democrats don’t need to put somebody who can win, I suggested even with who probably will win run against Trump, he can’t afford to lose a single vote.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Sure he can, if the democrat nominee gets fewer votes, at least in swing states, than hilary did. a few of them may be less attractive than she was. No?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Got Stripers]

2016 was influenced by Russia, by our own FBI announcement just ahead of the elections and then there is the hated Hillary; that perfect storm isn’t likely to happen again. Keep the faith, yes he will need every vote.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

2016 was influenced by Russia, by our own FBI announcement just ahead of the elections and then there is the hated Hillary; that perfect storm isn’t likely to happen again. Keep the faith, yes he will need every vote.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

russia had a meaningful
impact? the evidence if that, is...??

2016 was also impacted by the people being fed up
with the media being in the tank for the democrats. that feeling is more pervasive now, for good reason.

I think there’s a good chance the nominee is less like able than Hilary.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Got Stripers]

Let’s list the groups he has alienated and then how do you keep them all away from the polls?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

Let’s list the groups he has alienated and then how do you keep them all away from the polls?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i agree he’s divisive in certain circles. he’s also beloved in other circles.

i’m not saying i’m
certain he’s going to win. but i think there’s a good chance the democrats and the media are helping him, by completely failing to understand what happened in 2016.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

Let’s list the groups he has alienated and then how do you keep them all away from the polls?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Got Stripers]

I think you are mistaken if you think the Democrats don’t know what happened in 2016, the leadership and even most candidates are very aware of what happened, as are most educated Americans with a brain.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

I think you are mistaken if you think the Democrats don’t know what happened in 2016, the leadership and even most candidates are very aware of what happened, as are most educated Americans with a brain.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i respect your opinion. but i disagree.

i don’t think non stop attacks
of trump ( some of which, not all of which, were baseless), non stop insults of his base, and nominating someone way to the left of
obama ( embracing 9th month abortions, open borders, reparations, green new deals) is the correct response to their loss in 2016. the positions these candidates are embracing, lead me
to conclude they have no idea what happened in 2016, that they have no idea that not everyone is exactly like those in Hollywood or
the Upper West Side. 9th month abortions won't play well in NC.

remember, increasing democrat turnout in CA, NY, and IL, does
nothing, because trump can’t win there anyway. winning those states by a larger margin, has no electoral benefit to democrats.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

I think you are mistaken if you think the Democrats don’t know what happened in 2016, the leadership and even most candidates are very aware of what happened, as are most educated Americans with a brain.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yesterday on CNN, Don Lemon (who they call an 'anchor'), said anyone not on their side of impeachment, is "mental".

That suggests to me, that some very high profile people on the left, have absolutely no idea what happened in 2016. It's very difficult to say 'we blew it'. It's much easier on the ego, to play the victim, and say you lost an election because of racism, sexism, angry white males, ignorance, oh and let's not forget Russia. But not because of anything you did.

Does Hilary's book suggest to you, she has any understanding of why she lost?

[Got Stripers]

Politics aside the fate of our planet can be dramatically impacted with short sighted vision, our children’s children deserve a better future and IT IS NOT tied to how good our economy or stock market is doing. This clown doesn’t even believe in science, for him it’s all about fame and fortune, he will set us back in ways we can’t even imagine. Vote the Trump brand if that is what you believe works for our collective future, I believe he is a cancer and needs to be removed.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

Politics aside the fate of our planet can be dramatically impacted with short sighted vision, our children’s children deserve a better future and IT IS NOT tied to how good our economy or stock market is doing. This clown doesn’t even believe in science, for him it’s all about fame and fortune, he will set us back in ways we can’t even imagine. Vote the Trump brand if that is what you believe works for our collective future, I believe he is a cancer and needs to be removed.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

(1) i completely disagree that the quality ilife my kids can lead, isnt at all impacted by the stock market. my kids will inherit a lot of
money someday thanks to the market, will have more choices about what colleges to go
to.

(2) there’s a lot more to the economy than the stock
market. unemployment is way down. it doesn’t help
kids when their parents are working and wages are rising?

(3) i’m on board with ensuring healthy ecosystems. but it needs to be studied more before we ask developing countries to stop buying cars and heated homes, things that americans have enjoyed for decades.

(4) there’s more to science than being a climate fanatic. Trump is totally on board with the science of
ultrasounds, and what’s
there. another thing that helps
kids have a better future, is not being slaughtered in the womb. can’t have much if
you arent allowed to be born.

i would never have voted for
trump in a republican primary. i’m convinced he’s a million times
better than anyone currently running as a democrat. i care about economic growth, protecting the unborn, killing terrorists, securing the borders, advocating for less government and more individual liberty. Looking though that lense he is far from perfect, but far superior to the democratic freak show.

The Bill Clinton presidency taught me ( democrat’s taught me this, kind of ironic) that a president’s personal moral compass isn’t as important as the policies he implements. That’s what liberals
said from 1993-2000. They may have all changed their tune since then, but i agree with them.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

After you get your wits about you again you should look at the ties between
Deripaska
Firtash
DiGenova
Toensing
Parnas
Fruman
Giuliani
Nunes
Sessions
Floridaman
They all are tied together with Ukraine gas
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

After you get your wits about you again you should look at the ties between
Deripaska
Firtash
DiGenova
Toensing
Parnas
Fruman
Giuliani
Nunes
Sessions
Floridaman
They all are tied together with Ukraine gas
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'm sure their pictures are all on the wall of your bunker

[Sea Dangles]

🙀🍔
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Scorching testimony today. When do you think SD will realize his nothing burgers are really love letters to Putin?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

yawn...still nothing impeachable here...deranged democrats and butt-hurt bureaucrats sharing office gossip.....are they going to vote to impeach with no republican support and a couple of democrats defecting?....that will be impressive

VDH had some great points...

"In that context, it is baffling that a parade of civil servants now expresses their disenchantment with the White House policies of delaying lethal military aid that was fully delivered. Yet many of these critics were in government service between 2009–17.

The natural question arises, then: Where was their outrage at resetting with the Russians and leaving the Ukrainians to fend for themselves when it came to stopping Russian armor?

We can understand Fiona Hill’s apparent anguish at a temporary administrative delay in sending lethal aid, but she said nothing about not arming them in the past in extremis, and even wrote an incoherent Washington Post op-ed supporting the Obama administration’s failure to arm them.

When Hill states that Ukrainian officials had no involvement in the 2016 election to harm the Trump campaign, her opinions are in stark contrast to the testimonies of Ukrainian officials themselves, who cited Ukrainian efforts to discredit the Trump campaign.

And when she adds that Russians were seeding chaos without preferences in 2016, she again engages in selective memory. She must know that we spent 22 months and $35 million to show that there was no Russian–Trump election collusion, and we are soon going to learn from the Horowitz and Durham investigations whether U.S. officials trafficked with a British subject, hired by the Clinton campaign, to seed a spurious “dossier” that drew on all too willing Russian-seeded smears and libels that did a great deal of damage to the integrity to the FBI, the CIA, the DOJ, and the FISA courts, as many in these agencies used such unverified Russian dirt to harm a presidential campaign and transition.

Many of the witnesses are fine public servants, but their current and frequently expressed discontent over Trump’s Ukraine policy would find a more credible audience had they shown the prior courage to disagree with a past president popular within the ranks of the Washington bureaucracy who nonetheless did a lot of damage to Ukraine, by empowering Vladimir Putin and failing to adopt the measures that Trump rather quickly embraced and implemented.

There are two constants in these entire hearings: presumptions, assumptions, and conjectures from civil servant A about what civil servant B said or thought, and outrage at a temporary delay in lethal military juxtaposed by past silence over its prior nonexistence — which explains why what was born with a bang is ending with a whimper."

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

yawn...still nothing impeachable here...deranged democrats and butt-hurt bureaucrats sharing office gossip.....are they going to vote to impeach with no republican support and a couple of democrats defecting?....that will be impressive

VDH had some great points...

We can understand Fiona Hill’s apparent anguish at a temporary administrative delay in sending lethal aid, but she said nothing about not arming them in the past in extremis, and even wrote an incoherent Washington Post op-ed supporting the Obama administration’s failure to arm them.

When Hill states that Ukrainian officials had no involvement in the 2016 election to harm the Trump campaign, her opinions are in stark contrast to the testimonies of Ukrainian officials themselves, who cited Ukrainian efforts to discredit the Trump campaign.

And when she adds that Russians were seeding chaos without preferences in 2016, she again engages in selective memory. She must know that we spent 22 months and $35 million to show that there was no Russian–Trump election collusion, and we are soon going to learn from the Horowitz and Durham investigations whether U.S. officials trafficked with a British subject, hired by the Clinton campaign, to seed a spurious “dossier” that drew on all too willing Russian-seeded smears and libels that did a great deal of damage to the integrity to the FBI, the CIA, the DOJ, and the FISA courts, as many in these agencies used such unverified Russian dirt to harm a presidential campaign and transition.

Many of the witnesses are fine public servants, but their current and frequently expressed discontent over Trump’s Ukraine policy would find a more credible audience had they shown the prior courage to disagree with a past president popular within the ranks of the Washington bureaucracy who nonetheless did a lot of damage to Ukraine, by empowering Vladimir Putin and failing to adopt the measures that Trump rather quickly embraced and implemented.

There are two constants in these entire hearings: presumptions, assumptions, and conjectures from civil servant A about what civil servant B said or thought, and outrage at a temporary delay in lethal military juxtaposed by past silence over its prior nonexistence — which explains why what was born with a bang is ending with a whimper."

Lots of flip-flopping. I'm sure it has nothing to do with TDS.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Scorching testimony today. When do you think SD will realize his nothing burgers are really love letters to Putin?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Oh my yes. I loved Schiff saying that the reason people aren't swayed by hearsay and presumption, is that our intellect isn't as sophisticated as that of lawyers.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Oh my yes. I loved Schiff saying that the reason people aren't swayed by hearsay and presumption, is that our intellect isn't as sophisticated as that of lawyers.

it's pretty obvious that schif is possessed by satan

[Pete F.]

Will Israel be Floridaman’s next target

Bibi Netanyahu has been indicted for corruption...

The EU gives almost no aid to Israel...

Israel was not “with us at Normandy”...

So when is Floridaman cutting off aid and ending White House meetings???
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Some of you need to watch both fox and Cnn i have in real time..

One station has calm rational round table conversation with up to 6 people , And one has host and maybe 3 people all animated using very colorful words and lots of pictures with flashly headlines..

Then you have FB

Had a friend post how Jordon destroyed some one in his Trumplican form. A few other supported his view
I said he was a tool. Nothing more
A day later and several pro jordon posts from others His response was he was just posting his opinion ! and if you came here to argue go else where.. i guess i dont get an opinion on any post he starts unless i agree ..

So this plays out on bothside a lot ( if you Dont agree with me dont add to MY public post..

FB is the biggest danger to our democracy because the avg age on FB is 40.5 years old and the vast majority believe every meme or QUOTE over what the hear on the news or read in a. Paper. And they Vote
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Some of you need to watch both fox and Cnn i have in real time..

One station has calm rational round table conversation with up to 6 people , And one has host and maybe 3 people all animated using very colorful words and lots of pictures with flashly headlines..

Then you have FB

Had a friend post how Jordon destroyed some one in his Trumplican form. A few other supported his view
I said he was a tool. Nothing more
A day later and several pro jordon posts from others His response was he was just posting his opinion ! and if you came here to argue go else where.. i guess i dont get an opinion on any post he starts unless i agree ..

So this plays out on bothside a lot ( if you Dont agree with me dont add to MY public post..

FB is the biggest danger to our democracy because the avg age on FB is 40.5 years old and the vast majority believe every meme or QUOTE over what the hear on the news or read in a. Paper. And they Vote
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i watch CNN regularly. this week Don Lemon said people who disagree with him are “mental”.
and chris chino tried to prove trump was wrong ( when he said you can’t hear both sides of a phone conversation unless the call is on speakerphone) by calling his
mother live, and as usual, made a fool of himself.

Hannity is as big a partisan hack as CNNs entire prime time
lineup. Tucker Carlson, while
conservative, is better than the rest in prime time. he regularly criticized conservatives, he regularly tells liberals they have a good point. i don’t see that a lot at CNN.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by wdmso

FB is the biggest danger to our democracy

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Ban FB...

wait i thought trump was the biggest danger to our democracy?

[Pete F.]

An attorney from DC, has an interesting theory that connects all the dots.

I just realized that, for whatever reason, Sondland got his testimony about his "no quid pro quo" call with President Trump wrong. He testified that the call took place on September 9th, but that can't possibly be true.
Sondland's testimony was that, on Sept. 9, he got a "shocking" text from Bill Taylor in which he linked the hold on military assistance to the Biden investigations. That prompted Sondland to call Trump, who told him "no quid pro quo," which Sondland then parroted back to Taylor.



But Sondland wasn't telling the truth about why he called Trump. The "no quid pro quo" call was on Sept 7, and he told Tim Morrison about it, not Bill Taylor. It was Morrison who told Taylor about the call.

And Sondland wasn't telling the truth about what Trump said on the call.
The call Sondland testified about at his hearing yesterday didn't happen. But the Republicans and the WH loved his story – Trump even wrote out Sondland's testimony about what Trump had said on the call and gave a dramatic reenactment of it on the WH lawn.

POLITICO
✔
@politico
Donald Trump seized upon one particular bit of testimony from Gordon Sondland's hearing today. The EU envoy testified that the president told him "I want nothing" from Ukraine, and "I want no quid pro quo."

“That means it’s all over," Trump told reportershttps://politi.co/335Phsc

Embedded video
3,724
1:58 PM - Nov 20, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
2,788 people are talking about this
"I want nothing, I want no quid pro quo."

But that's not what Trump told Sondland in that call. What Trump actually said, according to Morrison and Taylor, was that *Trump wanted Zelensky to personally announce on camera that he was opening investigations into Burisma and 2016.*

Bill Taylor's testimony about this is clear and corresponds to recorded dates. On Sept. 7, a Saturday, he had to make a special trip to the embassy to make a secured call to Tim Morrison.

And in this call, Morrison updated him on Sondland's "no quid pro quo" call with Trump.


So Bill Taylor had nothing whatsoever to do with the call. Sondland's testimony that it was Taylor's text that prompted him to make the call was not truthful.
Instead, on Sept 7th, Sondland called Trump, and Trump claimed he "was not asking for a quid pro quo," but then immediately insisted that Zelensky "go to a microphone" and announce he was opening investigations into "Biden and 2016."

Sondland then told Morrison about the call.

Morrison was so disturbed by what Sondland had told him about his call with Trump that he immediately ran to the NSC lawyers to report it.

So Eisenberg has detailed reports about this call, and knows that Sondland's testimony about it yesterday was false.

The entire Republican defense of Trump yesterday was based on Sondland's false testimony about Trump "I want nothing."

But that's not what Trump said! Morrison documented with NSC lawyers that Trump said *he wanted Zelensky to announce that he was investigating Biden.*
Yesterday, Sondland kept playing the victim of his poor memory and the State Dept, claiming that because State had refused to give him access to his records and call logs, he couldn't verify his recollection of his calls with Trump.

But I don't think that's what happened at all. What Sondland actually testified is that the White House and State Department told him they "cannot locate" records of his Sept. 9th "no quid pro quo" call with Trump.

But of course they couldn't. That call doesn't exist!

The other lesson from all this is that when you make incriminating phone calls, don't be a #^&#^&#^&#^& about it. Because that helps witnesses remember it better when they testify.

Sondland needed to call and update Morrison on Sept. 7th because Trump had changed his request.

In the Sept 7 call, Trump told Sondland that it wasn't enough for the chief prosecutor to announce the investigations – Zelensky himself would need to do it.

Timothy Hayes
@ty2433
Replying to @TheViewFromLL2
Why did Sondland call Morrison?

2
7:01 PM - Nov 21, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
See Timothy Hayes's other Tweets
Sequence is:

Sept 1: In Warsaw, Sondland tells Yermak that to get aid released, the Prosecutor General must announce the Burisma investigation.

Sept 7: Trump & Sondland speak on phone, and Trump tells Sondland that the PG isn't good enough, announcement must come from Zelensky.


Later on Sept 7: Sondland calls Morrison and says, "Hey, I just talked to Trump, and there's been a change. Trump says there is no quid pro quo, but in order to get the aid money released, he now wants Pres. Zelensky personally to make the Burisma investigation announcement."
Still later on Sept 7: Morrison goes to NSC lawyers and Bolton to report on the Sondland and Trump call.

Which means there's contemporaneous documentation (or there should be) of Morrison's report on the "no quid pro quo" call, in which Trump actually describes his quid pro quo.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1...834109952.html