Tiberius Posted November 20, 2019 Share Posted November 20, 2019 ive Updates / Trump's E.U. ambassador delivers explosive impeachment testimony Just now4m ago Giuliani accuses Sondland of 'speculating' Just now7m ago Most Republicans have left the room Just now14m ago GOP calls Sondland’s testimony unreliable because of lack of documents. They're blocked by State and WH.? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted November 20, 2019 Author Share Posted November 20, 2019 2 minutes ago, jrober38 said: No. That's not what he's said. But it is: 1 hour ago, Deranged Rhino said: @jrober38 Ooops. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted November 20, 2019 Share Posted November 20, 2019 (edited) he just said and i quote....Sondland, " nobody told me directly the aid was tied to anything, i was presuming it was" Edited November 20, 2019 by Foxx 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted November 20, 2019 Author Share Posted November 20, 2019 (edited) Rudy speaks up: 5 minutes ago, jrober38 said: The bold parts, Sondland has said he knew happened. No guessing. He LITERALLY testified the opposite of this, JR. You're proving to be worse than an NPC. Edited November 20, 2019 by Deranged Rhino 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted November 20, 2019 Share Posted November 20, 2019 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bray Wyatt Posted November 20, 2019 Share Posted November 20, 2019 4 minutes ago, jrober38 said: No. That's not what he's said. He said he's presumed the aide was tied to the quid pro quo, which was already in place regarding the trade of a meeting for the public announcement. He knew the quid pro quo was trading a meeting at the White House for a public announcement that they would investigate the Bidens. That's where 2 + 2 = 4 Are you really this dense? This is pretty straightforward at this point. Are you guys even listening to what he's saying? The quid pro quo that Sondland KNOWS happened was trading a meeting at the White House for a public announcement that they were investigating the Bidens. He assumed the bit about the aide, but the quid pro quo was already in place. 2 (meeting at the White House) + 2 (military aide) = 4 (public announcement into Bidens) The bold parts, Sondland has said he knew happened. No guessing. The bold parts are not a crime 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted November 20, 2019 Share Posted November 20, 2019 (edited) 6 minutes ago, jrober38 said: ... Are you guys even listening to what he's saying? The quid pro quo that Sondland KNOWS happened was trading a meeting at the White House for a public announcement that they were investigating the Bidens. He assumed the bit about the aide, but the quid pro quo was already in place. 2 (meeting at the White House) + 2 (military aide) = 4 (public announcement into Bidens) The bold parts, Sondland has said he knew happened. No guessing. 3 minutes ago, Foxx said: he just said and i quote....Sondland, " nobody told me directly the aid was tied to anything, i was presuming it was" i am listening, are you? Edited November 20, 2019 by Foxx 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob in Mich Posted November 20, 2019 Share Posted November 20, 2019 10 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: The question is poorly framed. That has not changed. I had a mentor once, a person I look up to in my field, and I called to get some feedback many years back. I opened with all the issues I had with the company we worked with, the delays, the confusion, whatever. I then asked for some feedback on team building and some of the concerns I had with the attitude of my team. To paraphrase, he replied "With due respect, great southern rocker, I listened to what you said and have to ask you: Have you considered how what you say and how you say it impacts your own team and the way they look at their day with you?". The interesting part about that experience was that to whatever extent I've been successful in life, my ability to read, interact and harmonize with people has been a big part of that success. I frequently encounter people with opposing views, listen respectfully and respond in kind. I'd suggest that part of your problem in this particular forum is due in part to your own limitations and bias. Heck, you even chose to make a point of contention on the factual, indisputable argument that Congress is divided on the impeachment issue. I didn't even point out the obvious: Congress is divided over the moral and ethical question of "wrong". I guess in the end, one man's horse**** is another man's innocent quest for clarity. Seek first to understand, then to be understood. Yeah, I remember that Kung Fu episode...a good one. Thanks for the reminding me of David Carradine's sage advice. Here is the original post and question. What part was poorly framed? I think someone with your communication skills could surely pen a clear answer ...if they wanted to answer it. Live long and prosper. 2 hours ago, Bob in Mich said: Morning. Yes, I do believe the public testimony does tell a different story. I know many won't want to see it, but trying to leverage the Ukraine aid for his own personal political benefit was attempted and was wrong. Suspend for a moment what has or will be proven. Just answer a simple question, please. If Trump's intent and actions were exactly as I just stated in the paragraph above, would you think that either wrong or impeachable? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted November 20, 2019 Share Posted November 20, 2019 Just now, Bray Wyatt said: The bold parts are not a crime not meetings and public announcements!!! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrober38 Posted November 20, 2019 Share Posted November 20, 2019 Just now, Deranged Rhino said: But it is: Exactly. He's guessing on the aide. He's not guessing that the meeting was conditional into an announcement of Ukraine investigating the Bidens. The quid pro quo was already in place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted November 20, 2019 Author Share Posted November 20, 2019 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrober38 Posted November 20, 2019 Share Posted November 20, 2019 1 minute ago, Bray Wyatt said: The bold parts are not a crime Yes they are. Campaign finance violation, similar to the one Michael Cohen is sitting in jail for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bray Wyatt Posted November 20, 2019 Share Posted November 20, 2019 Just now, jrober38 said: Exactly. He's guessing on the aide. He's not guessing that the meeting was conditional into an announcement of Ukraine investigating the Bidens. The quid pro quo was already in place. The aide is the part that would make it a crime, without it he has nothing 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted November 20, 2019 Author Share Posted November 20, 2019 Just now, jrober38 said: Exactly. You were wrong. Because you're desperate to only hear what you want, not what's said. There are now numerous links above which disprove what you're claiming to be a fact. A presumption isn't a fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bray Wyatt Posted November 20, 2019 Share Posted November 20, 2019 Just now, jrober38 said: Yes they are. Campaign finance violation, similar to the one Michael Cohen is sitting in jail for. A meeting for a public announcement has to do with campaign finance law? lol 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted November 20, 2019 Author Share Posted November 20, 2019 1 minute ago, jrober38 said: Exactly. He's guessing on the aide. He's not guessing that the meeting was conditional into an announcement of Ukraine investigating the Bidens. The quid pro quo was already in place. He just repeated that you're wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrober38 Posted November 20, 2019 Share Posted November 20, 2019 Just now, Deranged Rhino said: You were wrong. Because you're desperate to only hear what you want, not what's said. There are now numerous links above which disprove what you're claiming to be a fact. A presumption isn't a fact. You obviously can't read, or you're selective choosing to ignore that Sondland has said numerous times that the quid pro quo he was aware of involved trading a White House meeting for a public announcement into the Bidens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted November 20, 2019 Share Posted November 20, 2019 okay, so everyone make up what they think happened and how they'd rule on it... then we can look at the actual evidence, or total paucity of it, and agree there was nothing to rule on and crummy sucky things happen all the time in this world, lots of times people are let go when they did something, because of a lack of real evidence, or error, or sabotage by prosecution Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted November 20, 2019 Author Share Posted November 20, 2019 Schiff just now: "33 minutes" 33... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrober38 Posted November 20, 2019 Share Posted November 20, 2019 Just now, Bray Wyatt said: A meeting for a public announcement has to do with campaign finance law? lol Yes. That's illegal. It's a campaign finance violation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts