Oh Donnie, You're invited

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

So no matter what he says, it's evidence that there was a quid pro quo.

Stuck between a rock and a hard place, what choice did Zelensky have?
In his position what would you say, if you had been told that the only way to assure that you get what you needed to survive was to lie?
Keep in mind the Trumplican claim that politicians lie all the time.

Zelensky's closing statement from his Time interview:
"Look, I never talked to the President from the position of a quid pro quo. That’s not my thing. … I don’t want us to look like beggars. But you have to understand. We’re at war. If you’re our strategic partner, then you can’t go blocking anything for us. I think that’s just about fairness. It’s not about a quid pro quo. It just goes without saying."

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Stuck between a rock and a hard place, what choice did Zelensky have?
In his position what would you say, if you had been told that the only way to assure that you get what you needed to survive was to lie?
Keep in mind the Trumplican claim that politicians lie all the time.

Zelensky's closing statement from his Time interview:
"Look, I never talked to the President from the position of a quid pro quo. That’s not my thing. … I don’t want us to look like beggars. But you have to understand. We’re at war. If you’re our strategic partner, then you can’t go blocking anything for us. I think that’s just about fairness. It’s not about a quid pro quo. It just goes without saying."

not just zelensky, according to you and the liberals here, everyone who denied the quid pro quo, was actually providing evidence there was a quid pro quo.

Your mind was made up before the first witness opened their mouth.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

they are clearly insane...just enjoy the spectacle

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

not just zelensky, according to you and the liberals here, everyone who denied the quid pro quo, was actually providing evidence there was a quid pro quo.

Your mind was made up before the first witness opened their mouth.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You never listened to a witness, did you?

From Sondland's testimony

Reflected President Trump’s desires and requirements. Within my State Department emails, there is a July 19th email. This email was sent. This email was sent to Secretary Pompeo, Secretary Perry, Brian McCormack, who is Secretary Perry’s chief of staff at the time. Ms. Kenna, who is the acting… Pardon me. Who is the executive secretariat for Secretary Pompeo, Chief of Staff Mulvaney, and Mr. Mulvaney’s senior advisor, Rob Blair. A lot of senior officials. A lot of senior officials.

Sondland: (30:45)
Here is my exact quote from that email, “I talked to Zelensky just now. He is prepared to receive POTUS’s call. Will assure him that he intends to run a fully transparent investigation, and will turn over every stone. He would greatly appreciate a call prior to Sunday so that he can put out some media about a friendly and productive call. No details. Prior to Ukraine election on Sunday.” Chief of Staff Mulvaney responded, “I asked the NSC to set it up for tomorrow.” Everyone was in the loop. It was no secret. Everyone was informed via email on July 19th, days before the presidential call. As I communicated to the team, I told President Zelensky in advance that assurances to run a fully transparent investigation and turn over every stone were necessary in his call with President Trump. On July 19th, in a WhatsApp message between Ambassador Taylor, Ambassador Volker, and me, Ambassador Volker stated, “Had breakfast with Rudy this morning.” That’s Ambassador Volker and Rudy Giuliani. “Teeing up call with Yermak Monday.” That’s senior advisor, Andriy Yermak. “Must have helped. Most important is for Zelensky to say that he will help investigation and address any specific personnel issues, if there are any.”

Sondland: (32:33)
On August 10th, the next day, Mr. Yermak texted me, “Once we have a date,” which is a date for the White House meeting, “we will call for a press briefing, announcing upcoming visit and outlining vision for the reboot of the US-Ukraine relationship, including among other things, Burisma and election meddling in investigations.” This is from Mr. Yermak to me.

Sondland: (33:06)
The following day, August 11th, and this is critical, I sent an email to Counselor Brechbuhl and Lisa Kenna. Lisa Kenna was frequently used as the pathway to Secretary Pompeo, as sometimes he preferred to receive his emails through her. She would print them out and put them in front of him. With the subject “Ukraine.” I wrote, “Mike,” referring to Mike Pompeo, “Kurt and I negotiated a statement from Zelensky to be delivered for our review in a day or two. The contents will hopefully make the boss happy enough,” the boss being the President, “to authorize an invitation. Zelensky plans to have a big presser,” press conference, ” on the openness subject, including specifics next week.” All of which referred to the 2016 and the Burisma.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

You never listened to a witness, did you?

From Sondland's testimony

Reflected President Trump’s desires and requirements. Within my State Department emails, there is a July 19th email. This email was sent. This email was sent to Secretary Pompeo, Secretary Perry, Brian McCormack, who is Secretary Perry’s chief of staff at the time. Ms. Kenna, who is the acting… Pardon me. Who is the executive secretariat for Secretary Pompeo, Chief of Staff Mulvaney, and Mr. Mulvaney’s senior advisor, Rob Blair. A lot of senior officials. A lot of senior officials.

Sondland: (30:45)
Here is my exact quote from that email, “I talked to Zelensky just now. He is prepared to receive POTUS’s call. Will assure him that he intends to run a fully transparent investigation, and will turn over every stone. He would greatly appreciate a call prior to Sunday so that he can put out some media about a friendly and productive call. No details. Prior to Ukraine election on Sunday.” Chief of Staff Mulvaney responded, “I asked the NSC to set it up for tomorrow.” Everyone was in the loop. It was no secret. Everyone was informed via email on July 19th, days before the presidential call. As I communicated to the team, I told President Zelensky in advance that assurances to run a fully transparent investigation and turn over every stone were necessary in his call with President Trump. On July 19th, in a WhatsApp message between Ambassador Taylor, Ambassador Volker, and me, Ambassador Volker stated, “Had breakfast with Rudy this morning.” That’s Ambassador Volker and Rudy Giuliani. “Teeing up call with Yermak Monday.” That’s senior advisor, Andriy Yermak. “Must have helped. Most important is for Zelensky to say that he will help investigation and address any specific personnel issues, if there are any.”

Sondland: (32:33)
On August 10th, the next day, Mr. Yermak texted me, “Once we have a date,” which is a date for the White House meeting, “we will call for a press briefing, announcing upcoming visit and outlining vision for the reboot of the US-Ukraine relationship, including among other things, Burisma and election meddling in investigations.” This is from Mr. Yermak to me.

Sondland: (33:06)
The following day, August 11th, and this is critical, I sent an email to Counselor Brechbuhl and Lisa Kenna. Lisa Kenna was frequently used as the pathway to Secretary Pompeo, as sometimes he preferred to receive his emails through her. She would print them out and put them in front of him. With the subject “Ukraine.” I wrote, “Mike,” referring to Mike Pompeo, “Kurt and I negotiated a statement from Zelensky to be delivered for our review in a day or two. The contents will hopefully make the boss happy enough,” the boss being the President, “to authorize an invitation. Zelensky plans to have a big presser,” press conference, ” on the openness subject, including specifics next week.” All of which referred to the 2016 and the Burisma.

did you miss the part of Sondlands testimony, when he explicitly stated he had no direct evidence of a quid pro quo, just a presumption on his part? Which is nothing.

There is zero chance he gets removed from office, and a decent chance he gets re-elected.


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

did you miss the part of Sondlands testimony, when he explicitly stated he had no direct evidence of a quid pro quo, just a presumption on his part? Which is nothing.

There is zero chance he gets removed from office, and a decent chance he gets re-elected.


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Awful lot of people with the same presumption, obviously mass hysteria.

Dan Goldman: (27:26)
And at this time you were aware of the President’s desire along with Rudy Giuliani to do these investigations, including the 2016 election interference investigation, is that right?

Gordon Sondland: (27:38)
That’s correct.

Dan Goldman: (27:40)
And you said President Trump had directed you to talk, you and the others to talk to Rudy Giuliani at the Oval Office on May 23rd, is that right?

Gordon Sondland: (27:51)
If we wanted to get anything done with Ukraine, it was apparent to us we needed to talk to Rudy.

Dan Goldman: (27:55)
Right, you understood that Mr. Giuliani spoke for the President, correct?

Gordon Sondland: (28:00)
That’s correct.

Dan Goldman: (28:03)
And in fact, President Trump also made that clear to President Zelensky in that same July 25th phone call, he said, “Mr. Giuliani is a highly respected man. He was the Mayor of New York city, a great mayor and I would like him to call you. I will ask him to call you along with the attorney general. Rudy very much knows what’s happening and he is a very capable guy.” And after this, President Trump then mentions Mr. Giuliani twice more in that call. Now from Mr. Giuliani by this point, you understood that in order to get that White House meeting that you wanted President Zelensky to have and that President Zelensky desperately wanted to have, that Ukraine would have to initiate these two investigations. Is that right?

Gordon Sondland: (28:55)
Well, they would have to announce that they were going to do it.

Dan Goldman: (28:58)
Right, because Giuliani and President Trump didn’t actually care if they did them, right?

Gordon Sondland: (29:03)
I never heard, Mr. Goldman, anyone say that the investigations had to start or had to be completed. The only thing I heard from Mr. Giuliani or otherwise was that they had to be announced in some form and that form kept changing.

Dan Goldman: (29:19)
Announced publicly?

Gordon Sondland: (29:20)
Announced publicly.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Awful lot of people with the same presumption, obviously mass hysteria.

Dan Goldman: (27:26)
And at this time you were aware of the President’s desire along with Rudy Giuliani to do these investigations, including the 2016 election interference investigation, is that right?

Gordon Sondland: (27:38)
That’s correct.

Dan Goldman: (27:40)
And you said President Trump had directed you to talk, you and the others to talk to Rudy Giuliani at the Oval Office on May 23rd, is that right?

Gordon Sondland: (27:51)
If we wanted to get anything done with Ukraine, it was apparent to us we needed to talk to Rudy.

Dan Goldman: (27:55)
Right, you understood that Mr. Giuliani spoke for the President, correct?

Gordon Sondland: (28:00)
That’s correct.

Dan Goldman: (28:03)
And in fact, President Trump also made that clear to President Zelensky in that same July 25th phone call, he said, “Mr. Giuliani is a highly respected man. He was the Mayor of New York city, a great mayor and I would like him to call you. I will ask him to call you along with the attorney general. Rudy very much knows what’s happening and he is a very capable guy.” And after this, President Trump then mentions Mr. Giuliani twice more in that call. Now from Mr. Giuliani by this point, you understood that in order to get that White House meeting that you wanted President Zelensky to have and that President Zelensky desperately wanted to have, that Ukraine would have to initiate these two investigations. Is that right?

Gordon Sondland: (28:55)
Well, they would have to announce that they were going to do it.

Dan Goldman: (28:58)
Right, because Giuliani and President Trump didn’t actually care if they did them, right?

Gordon Sondland: (29:03)
I never heard, Mr. Goldman, anyone say that the investigations had to start or had to be completed. The only thing I heard from Mr. Giuliani or otherwise was that they had to be announced in some form and that form kept changing.

Dan Goldman: (29:19)
Announced publicly?

Gordon Sondland: (29:20)
Announced publicly.

There is no mention of military aid funds in any of this.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

There is no mention of military aid funds in any of this.

What's your spin, oops sorry, point?

The military aid, the investigation of the Bidens and the WH meeting are all things of value that Floridaman asked for or withheld for personal gain and are referenced in multiple witnesses testimony.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

You never listened to a witness, did you?

From Sondland's testimony

Reflected President Trump’s desires and requirements. Within my State Department emails, there is a July 19th email. This email was sent. This email was sent to Secretary Pompeo, Secretary Perry, Brian McCormack, who is Secretary Perry’s chief of staff at the time. Ms. Kenna, who is the acting… Pardon me. Who is the executive secretariat for Secretary Pompeo, Chief of Staff Mulvaney, and Mr. Mulvaney’s senior advisor, Rob Blair. A lot of senior officials. A lot of senior officials.

Sondland: (30:45)
Here is my exact quote from that email, “I talked to Zelensky just now. He is prepared to receive POTUS’s call. Will assure him that he intends to run a fully transparent investigation, and will turn over every stone. He would greatly appreciate a call prior to Sunday so that he can put out some media about a friendly and productive call. No details. Prior to Ukraine election on Sunday.” Chief of Staff Mulvaney responded, “I asked the NSC to set it up for tomorrow.” Everyone was in the loop. It was no secret. Everyone was informed via email on July 19th, days before the presidential call. As I communicated to the team, I told President Zelensky in advance that assurances to run a fully transparent investigation and turn over every stone were necessary in his call with President Trump. On July 19th, in a WhatsApp message between Ambassador Taylor, Ambassador Volker, and me, Ambassador Volker stated, “Had breakfast with Rudy this morning.” That’s Ambassador Volker and Rudy Giuliani. “Teeing up call with Yermak Monday.” That’s senior advisor, Andriy Yermak. “Must have helped. Most important is for Zelensky to say that he will help investigation and address any specific personnel issues, if there are any.”

Sondland: (32:33)
On August 10th, the next day, Mr. Yermak texted me, “Once we have a date,” which is a date for the White House meeting, “we will call for a press briefing, announcing upcoming visit and outlining vision for the reboot of the US-Ukraine relationship, including among other things, Burisma and election meddling in investigations.” This is from Mr. Yermak to me.

Sondland: (33:06)
The following day, August 11th, and this is critical, I sent an email to Counselor Brechbuhl and Lisa Kenna. Lisa Kenna was frequently used as the pathway to Secretary Pompeo, as sometimes he preferred to receive his emails through her. She would print them out and put them in front of him. With the subject “Ukraine.” I wrote, “Mike,” referring to Mike Pompeo, “Kurt and I negotiated a statement from Zelensky to be delivered for our review in a day or two. The contents will hopefully make the boss happy enough,” the boss being the President, “to authorize an invitation. Zelensky plans to have a big presser,” press conference, ” on the openness subject, including specifics next week.” All of which referred to the 2016 and the Burisma.

There is no mention of military aid funds in any of this.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT;1180879

Your mind was made up before the first witness opened their mouth.
[size=1

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device[/size]

This is hilarious statment from you...

SO if someones mind was made up beforehand

And all the information presented re enforces this . You find that odd

But having your mind made up that nothing happened.. then your given the same info . And dismiss it as hear say .. just tells everyone you need to understand evidence.. you dont need a gun to convict someone of murder.. seems for you. a gun is required with out it no ones guilty
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

This is hilarious statment from you...

SO if someones mind was made up beforehand

And all the information presented re enforces this . You find that odd

But having your mind made up that nothing happened.. then your given the same info . And dismiss it as hear say .. just tells everyone you need to understand evidence.. you dont need a gun to convict someone of murder.. seems for you. a gun is required with out it no ones guilty
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

there was no direct evidence of anything.

tell us again how the economy hasn’t done anything, and how trump plays no role in getting federal judges put in place.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

there was no direct evidence of anything.

tell us again how the economy hasn’t done anything, and how trump plays no role in getting federal judges put in place.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

All of that doesn't preclude him acting inappropriately on this issue.

"I need a favor, though"

You can argue it is impeachable or not, but pretty clearly he withheld aid to try and get an investigation into the Biden's to benefit him politically, and only released the aid when he heard about the whistleblower report.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

All of that doesn't preclude him acting inappropriately on this issue.

"I need a favor, though"

You can argue it is impeachable or not, but pretty clearly he withheld aid to try and get an investigation into the Biden's to benefit him politically, and only released the aid when he heard about the whistleblower report.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

so a president can’t do
anything that will benefit him politically. So if Trump can ink a favorable trade deal with China which helps our economy, he can’t do it if it helps him politically?

Biden was sure bragging about using quid pro quo to get what he wanted, I bet he thought that helped him politically.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

so a president can’t do
anything that will benefit him politically. So if Trump can ink a favorable trade deal with China which helps our economy, he can’t do it if it helps him politically?

Biden was sure bragging about using quid pro quo to get what he wanted, I bet he thought that helped him politically.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Not when it is counter to US foreign policy, no.

What Biden did was not the same Jim, no matter how many times you say it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

there was no direct evidence of anything.

tell us again how the economy hasn’t done anything, and how trump plays no role in getting federal judges put in place.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

your beyond blind I get it all these people just misunderstood what Trump wanted

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

This is hilarious statment from you...

SO if someones mind was made up beforehand

And all the information presented re enforces this . You find that odd

But having your mind made up that nothing happened.. then your given the same info . And dismiss it as hear say .. just tells everyone you need to understand evidence.. you dont need a gun to convict someone of murder.. seems for you. a gun is required with out it no ones guilty
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

there no evidence there was. quid pro quo, though i’d bet there probably was. but if it wasn’t bad when biden did it, i don’t see why it’s bad when trump does it.

did biden use quid pro quo to get what he wanted?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device