U.S. diplomat Sondland reverses impeachment testimony, says he knew of Ukraine quid pro quo

[Chomper Higgot]

3 hours ago, seajae said:

so what happened between the time he made his first statement(under oath was it) and this one, who spoke to him and told him to change what he said to make trump look guilty. There are some very fishy things going on and it will be good to actually get to the bottom of it all instead of the current jockeying by the dems to get what they want, the truth doesnt seem to come into what they are doing, they have the written record of the call but still cant accept it and have gone as far as to make up what actually was said by the idiot leading the dems charge and the impeachment call as well as him lying about the whistle blower first contact with him and his office, lets hope the truth does emerge

He realized he was going to be indicted for perjury, so he went back and told the truth.

 

Away with your baseless conspiracies.

[Chomper Higgot]

6 minutes ago, BestB said:

i know i know, its all about them, we never lie or do anything wrong even when caught red handed????

It’s all about who is being indicted.

 

That and the lack of a defense against the crimes being reported in sworn testimony.

[BestB]

Just now, Chomper Higgot said:

It’s all about who is being indicted.

 

That and the lack of a defense against the crimes being reported in sworn testimony.

No, its all about not pretending and deflecting that other side was/is innocent.

 

Dems would have had much more success if they also opened an investigation into Biden to show it is really about fighting corruption, instead of denying and whitewashing what Biden did.

 

And clearly with more and more evidence of Biden lying some still  insist on deflecting, instead of acknowledging Dems are just as corrupt and dirty as Trump and his administration.

 

 

[Opl]

4 hours ago, seajae said:

so what happened between the time he made his first statement(under oath was it) and this one, who spoke to him and told him to change what he said to make trump look guilty. There are some very fishy things going on and it will be good to actually get to the bottom of it all instead of the current jockeying by the dems to get what they want, the truth doesnt seem to come into what they are doing, they have the written record of the call but still cant accept it and have gone as far as to make up what actually was said by the idiot leading the dems charge and the impeachment call as well as him lying about the whistle blower first contact with him and his office, lets hope the truth does emerge

Sondland  realized Trump might not exonerate him ( like Mueller did not exonerate Trump). Trump does nothing wrong, he only is the one close to those who act very badly...

Edited November 6, 2019 by Opl

[Jingthing]

3 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Of course he is.

 

And his supporters think that’s quite acceptable.

 

He’s a cult leader.

 

I only hope he never gets to the familiar cult bit about not wearing clothes.

Yes it's gotten to the point of wondering what those loyal republican senators see in him. Assuming it's all selfish, what's in it for them to stick with such a LOSER that's about to be impeached in the house based on the most serious charges against a president in American history. One man is that important? 

[heybruce]

58 minutes ago, BestB said:

No, its all about not pretending and deflecting that other side was/is innocent.

 

Dems would have had much more success if they also opened an investigation into Biden to show it is really about fighting corruption, instead of denying and whitewashing what Biden did.

 

And clearly with more and more evidence of Biden lying some still  insist on deflecting, instead of acknowledging Dems are just as corrupt and dirty as Trump and his administration.

 

 

There is circumstantial evidence that Hunter Biden traded on the family name to make money.  Just like Trump and his children.  No evidence has been presented that Joe Biden did anything illegal or improper to help his son.

 

There is overwhelming evidence that Donald Trump and crew held up military aid in order to get discredited conspiracy theories about the Democratic server and Joe Biden publicly investigated by Ukraine.

 

That is the situation; clear evidence of abuse of power and illegal solicitation of campaign help by Trump, no evidence of anything illegal and improper by Joe Biden. 

 

Now is there any chance you can stick to the topic?

[BestB]

13 minutes ago, heybruce said:

There is circumstantial evidence that Hunter Biden traded on the family name to make money.  Just like Trump and his children.  No evidence has been presented that Joe Biden did anything illegal or improper to help his son.

 

There is overwhelming evidence that Donald Trump and crew held up military aid in order to get discredited conspiracy theories about the Democratic server and Joe Biden publicly investigated by Ukraine.

 

That is the situation; clear evidence of abuse of power and illegal solicitation of campaign help by Trump, no evidence of anything illegal and improper by Joe Biden. 

 

Now is there any chance you can stick to the topic?

There is no investigation into Biden and that is the point,

 

There is plenty of evidence out there already, it just gets dismissed with childish comments like "but but but" or some other nonsense,

 

As i said earlier, IF Dems had an inquiry into Biden as well, perhaps they would have been more successful and more people would have been willing to condemn Trump, but when one side is just as dirty , but whitewashes its wrong doings, more and more people will stick by Trump.

 

Even some delusional people here still believe Trump will be gone and mission achieved, which is FAR from what is happening

[bristolboy]

9 minutes ago, BestB said:

There is no investigation into Biden and that is the point,

 

There is plenty of evidence out there already, it just gets dismissed with childish comments like "but but but" or some other nonsense,

 

As i said earlier, IF Dems had an inquiry into Biden as well, perhaps they would have been more successful and more people would have been willing to condemn Trump, but when one side is just as dirty , but whitewashes its wrong doings, more and more people will stick by Trump.

 

Even some delusional people here still believe Trump will be gone and mission achieved, which is FAR from what is happening

Not even Volker and Sondland think there's any good  evidence. There's no more evidence that Biden was protecting Hunter Biden than that Trump arranged for trademarks to be granted by the Chinese for Ivanka or that he pushed the Qatari government to bail out Jared in a sweetheart deal. This is not to say that they didn't profit from being close to Trump, but only that Trump didn't push the deals. It's almost a sure thing that Hunter Biden benefited from being Joseph's Biden son. But there's absolutely no good evidence that J. Biden was protecting H. Biden. There is some very unreliable evidence from Lutsenko, who previously has retracted his claim that Ambassador Yovanovitch gave a a do not prosecute list. Most of the other allegations seem to stem from the 2 lowlife associates of Rudolph Giuliani and their indicted employer, Dmytro Firtash. Joseph Biden was carrying out the policy of United States Government. Which policy was supported by the EU and the IMF. Do you think that the US government, the EU and IMF all have a special fondness for Hunter Biden?

[BestB]

Just now, bristolboy said:

Not even Volker and Sondland think there's any good  evidence. There's no more evidence that Biden was protecting Hunter Biden than that Trump arranged for trademarks to be granted by the Chinese for Ivanka or that he pushed the Qatari government to bail out Jared in a sweetheart deal. This is not to say that they didn't profit from being close to Trump, but only that Trump didn't push the deals. It's almost a sure thing that Hunter Biden benefited from being Joseph's Biden son. But there's absolutely no good evidence that J. Biden was protecting H. Biden. There is some very unreliable evidence from Lutsenko, who previously has retracted his claim that Ambassador Yovanovitch gave a a do not prosecute list. Most of the other allegations seem to stem from the 2 lowlife associates of Rudolph Giuliani and their indicted employer, Dmytro Firtash. Joseph Biden was carrying out the policy of United States Government. Which policy was supported by the EU and the IMF. Do you think that the US government, the EU and IMF all have a special fondness for Hunter Biden?

You do not think now leaked emails are good? Fact that Biden is flip flopping now is not good enough? Perhaps if Schiff did open an investigation, more could be found? Perhaps now that it is going public more will be found?

[riclag]

6 hours ago, Becker said:

Wait, what??

You're a base Trump supporter, you're totally into those things!!

Your nonsense conspiracy theory rant in your earlier comment  below that the POTUS was going to call for a armed revolt,just escalated to trolling and baiting by proceeding  to tell me what I'm into

 

"True, and if he isn't removed from office before the next election I fully expect him to call for an armed revolt if his loss is anything less than a landslide.

He really is that despicable".

Edited November 6, 2019 by riclag

[BestB]

As much as all your Trump bashers hate Fox, here is a very balanced view on what is happening and will happen, which is not much but more Trump 

 

[riclag]

1 hour ago, BestB said:

As much as all your Trump bashers hate Fox, here is a very balanced view on what is happening and will happen, which is not much but more Trump 

 

The WH Transcript tells it all ,along with the Ukrainian pres admission, no pressure ! The GOP,house and senate are sticking to their belief that there isn't anything that's going to change there mind , Certainly not a presumption! 

Edited November 6, 2019 by riclag

[sirineou]

1 minute ago, riclag said:

The Transcript tells it all ,along with the Ukrainian pres admission, no pressure ! The GOP sticking to their belief that there isn't anything that's going to change there mind , Certainly not a presumption! 

First the Whistleblower was lying,  then even if he was lying "get over it politics always affect policy",  the process is unfair, then even if there is a Quid pro quo it does not rise to the level of an impeachable offence. 

Now you are telling as that we should not believe what Sondland said but we should believe the Ukrainian president who said "No pressure"   

You all continue with your nonsense, in the meantime results are coming back from the elections , Democrats won Virginia , and !!!!! won in Kentucky  . KENTUCKY !!!  It is almost like saying a Muslim was elected Pope in the Vatican.  

[riclag]

24 minutes ago, sirineou said:

First the Whistleblower was lying,  then even if he was lying "get over it politics always affect policy",  the process is unfair, then even if there is a Quid pro quo it does not rise to the level of an impeachable offence. 

Now you are telling as that we should not believe what Sondland said but we should believe the Ukrainian president who said "No pressure"   

You all continue with your nonsense, in the meantime results are coming back from the elections , Democrats won Virginia , and !!!!! won in Kentucky  . KENTUCKY !!!  It is almost like saying a Muslim was elected Pope in the Vatican.  

The GOP has made it clear that they aren't in agreement with sciff and the msm narrative .  sondland testimony was a 3 page extension created because he forgot to mention a previous meeting in his original closed door meeting. He never mention with certainty but a presumption. Mr. Trump has made it clear to him at the time there is to be no quid quo pro.

[sirineou]

2 hours ago, riclag said:

 Mr. Trump has made it clear to him at the time there is to be no quid quo pro.

Yes indeed

Tell the president of the Ukraine " that 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 "

But make sure there is no quid pro quo. 

Unless the next move will be to claim  that Sondland went rogue , at which point I should ask, If indeed Sondland went rogue why wasn't he fired afterwards. and his misdeed forwarded to the FBI for investigation?

Even voters in Kentucky, they are not buying this #*%& anymore,  Why are you?

 

Edited November 6, 2019 by sirineou

[stevenl]

8 hours ago, BestB said:

There is no investigation into Biden and that is the point,

 

There is plenty of evidence out there already, it just gets dismissed with childish comments like "but but but" or some other nonsense,

 

As i said earlier, IF Dems had an inquiry into Biden as well, perhaps they would have been more successful and more people would have been willing to condemn Trump, but when one side is just as dirty , but whitewashes its wrong doings, more and more people will stick by Trump.

 

Even some delusional people here still believe Trump will be gone and mission achieved, which is FAR from what is happening

An investigation into Biden would have to be initiated by your favourite AG, Barr. Why do you think he has not done so? IMO: because there4 is nothing there, and that conclusion would be really bad for Trump. Better to keep the status quo so the Trump campaign can keep on pointing fingers at Biden.

 

Do you have any other ideas why Barr is not investigating Biden?

[Curt1591]

The script has been written, the rehearsals are done, and the trailers have been released. We'll just have to see how it all plays out during the actual proceedings. 

Edited November 6, 2019 by Curt1591

[metisdead]

A post in violation of fair use policy has been removed as well as the replies. 

 

Some troll posts and replies have been removed.

 

A post containing a trolling video has been removed. 

 

Posts linking to unapproved sites have been removed. 

 

 

[J Town]

6 hours ago, riclag said:

The GOP has made it clear that they aren't in agreement with sciff [sic] and the msm narrative.

No. Lindsey Graham, who leads this Senate judiciary process, has publicly stated he has no interest in looking at the evidence. Schiff et al have been painstakingly careful about ensuring the impeachment process is legitimate. The GOP has publicly stated they will hold a kangaroo court and the outcome has already been determined regardless of the facts.

[riclag]

5 hours ago, sirineou said:

Yes indeed

Tell the president of the Ukraine " that 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 "

But make sure there is no quid pro quo. 

Unless the next move will be to claim  that Sondland went rogue , at which point I should ask, If indeed Sondland went rogue why wasn't he fired afterwards. and his misdeed forwarded to the FBI for investigation?

Even voters in Kentucky, they are not buying this #*%& anymore,  Why are you?

 

Do you have a source for that quote ! I believe your mistaken because the POTUS referenced the 2016 investigation that is currently being investigated by Durham which is noted in the WH transcript     " that 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 "

 

I believe sounland was referencing the Ukrainian "crowdstrike" that supposedly investigated the dnc server . Mr. Trump was interested in cooperation with that .How sounland could presume anything else especially after the POTUS told him no this isn't a quid quo. 

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/zoetillman/trump-paul-manafort-ukraine-dnc-hack

Edited November 7, 2019 by riclag

[J Town]

4 minutes ago, riclag said:

Do you have a source for that quote that referenced the 2016 investigation that is currently being investigated by Durham which is noted in the WH transcript  "that 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 "

Sorry to hear your Google is broken. When you get it fixed, multiple sources here:
 

https://www.google.com/search?newwindow=1&hl=en&dcr=0&sxsrf=ACYBGNREomjIMxmHwSjxMtehlq5TaRh3Vg%3A1573088789470&ei=FW7DXZKuHL--0PEP_ZiYiA4&q=that+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&oq=that+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&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0i71l8.444238.447585..448009...0.2..0.0.0.......1....2j1..gws-wiz._jnd3jpuWKI&ved=0ahUKEwjSjPyz9NblAhU_HzQIHX0MBuEQ4dUDCAs&uact=5

[sirineou]

4 minutes ago, riclag said:

Do you have a source for that quote that referenced the 2016 investigation that is currently being investigated by Durham which is noted in the WH transcript     " that 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 "

 

I believe sounland was referencing the Ukrainian "crowdstrike" that supposedly investigated the dnc server . Mr. Trump was interested in cooperation with that .How sounland could presume anything else especially after the POTUS told him no this isn't a quid quo. 

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/zoetillman/trump-paul-manafort-ukraine-dnc-hack

Sure I have a source, It's all over the news. The statement speaks for itself . What were they discussing for many weeks?

[J Town]

1 minute ago, sirineou said:

Sure I have a source, It's all over the news. The statement speaks for itself . What were they discussing for many weeks?

Typical red herring/distraction. Republicans will do ANYTHING to avoid actually discussing the facts.

[riclag]

7 minutes ago, sirineou said:

Sure I have a source, It's all over the news. The statement speaks for itself . What were they discussing for many weeks?

crowdstrike and the Durham investigation. How could sounland presume anything else ,especially after the POTUS told him this isn't  a QPQ. 

Edited November 7, 2019 by riclag

[J Town]

4 minutes ago, riclag said:

crowdstrike and the Durham investigation. How could sounland presume anything else ,especially after the POTUS told him this isn't  a QQP. 

You mean "QPQ?"

 

You do realize that "There was no quid pro quo" statement from Trump to Sondland was completely fabricated nonsense, generated AFTER his shocked staff understood the doo doo they all just stepped in?

Edited November 7, 2019 by J Town
spelling

[bristolboy]

10 hours ago, BestB said:

You do not think now leaked emails are good? Fact that Biden is flip flopping now is not good enough? Perhaps if Schiff did open an investigation, more could be found? Perhaps now that it is going public more will be found?

The leaked emails, contrary to your previous assertion, say nothing at all about Shokin, the prosecutor, who alone claims that he was investigating Burisma at the time he was dismissed. Others including the legislature and his own deputy, say he had dropped the investigation over a year before Biden made his demand.  The evidence of Shokin's corruption is overwhelming.

For an investigation to be opened, there has to be sufficient evidence. What you've referenced is laughable. 

[Becker]

12 hours ago, riclag said:

Your nonsense conspiracy theory rant in your earlier comment  below that the POTUS was going to call for a armed revolt,just escalated to trolling and baiting by proceeding  to tell me what I'm into

 

"True, and if he isn't removed from office before the next election I fully expect him to call for an armed revolt if his loss is anything less than a landslide.

He really is that despicable".

To have expectations about something is not presenting a theory. Get it now?

[johnnybangkok]

11 hours ago, riclag said:

The GOP has made it clear that they aren't in agreement with sciff and the msm narrative .  sondland testimony was a 3 page extension created because he forgot to mention a previous meeting in his original closed door meeting. He never mention with certainty but a presumption. Mr. Trump has made it clear to him at the time there is to be no quid quo pro.

The mental dexterity required to keep on defending Trump in the face of overwhelming evidence is truly something to behold.

Doesn't your head hurt trying to keep all the whataboutisms, deflections and just plain conspiracy theories going?

Sondland has literally done a u-turn on what he originally said with a moment of 'remembering' to confirm it was indeed QPQ (and is now the 3rd senior individual to do so) yet that still isn't enough for you guys.

Your boys are truly something else. 

[GroveHillWanderer]

12 hours ago, BestB said:

You do not think now leaked emails are good? Fact that Biden is flip flopping now is not good enough? Perhaps if Schiff did open an investigation, more could be found? Perhaps now that it is going public more will be found?

Did you even look at the information on the link you posted? All it shows is that somebody with links to Biden/Burisma (Karen Tramontano of Blue Star Strategies) was wanting to get more information about why there were apparently allegations of corruption against Burisma.

 

The email says:

 

Quote

"Tramontano would like to talk with U/S Novelli about getting a better understanding of how the U.S. came to the determination that the company is corrupt. According to Tramontano, there is no evidence of corruption, has been no hearing or process, and evidence to the contrary has not been considered.”

Asking for a better understanding of allegations, is not evidence of wrongdoing in any way that I can see. In any event and as even the reports in right-wing media say, there is no evidence that such a meeting actually took place.

[Mavideol]

no quid pro quo, hmmmm ???? . President Trump wanted Attorney General William P. Barr to hold a news conference declaring that the commander in chief had broken no laws during a phone call in which he pressed his Ukrainian counterpart to investigate a political rival, though Barr ultimately declined to do so, people familiar with the matter said.