Oh Donnie, You're invited

[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.

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.

They weren't referenced in those posts. And the personal gain bit is an assumption, not a fact. The "appearance" of something, such as the appearance of Hunter Biden being hired by Burisma being bad optics is not a crime. And when there are conflicting "appearances," such as wanting investigations in this case to assure that corruption is being fought, then it is a matter of spin, not fact.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

They weren't referenced in those posts. And the personal gain bit is an assumption, not a fact. The "appearance" of something, such as the appearance of Hunter Biden being hired by Burisma being bad optics is not a crime. And when there are conflicting "appearances," such as wanting investigations in this case to assure that corruption is being fought, then it is a matter of spin, not fact.

You're wrong, they are reason enough to investigate, and there is no precedent or reason for the ongoing obstruction, unless you are guilty of course.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

You're wrong, they are reason enough to investigate, and there is no precedent or reason for the ongoing obstruction, unless you are guilty of course.

You're wrong. I am correct in pointing out that the military aid was not referenced in those posts. And the personal gain bit IS an assumption. If it takes an investigation to prove it, then, until and if that happens, it is an assumption.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

You're wrong. I am correct in pointing out that the military aid was not referenced in those posts. And the personal gain bit IS an assumption. If it takes an investigation to prove it, then, until and if that happens, it is an assumption.

I could post every bit of the testimony, Floridaman's asks were detailed in the testimony.
Having Guiliani as a cutout does not make it impossible to prosecute the crime.
Floridaman is following his lifelong pattern of obstruction, he's been doing it fairly successfully since the 70's.
He has way more people watching him now than ever before.
It's closing in on him.

But don't worry the laughable GOP report says, yes, Trump did it. But his motives were pure!