It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Gordon Sondland Claims He Was ‘Disappointed’ With Trump’s Ukraine Pressure

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 17 2019 @ 09:32 AM
link   

Gordon Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union, criticized President Donald Trump’s dealings with Ukraine, saying he was “disappointed” in his efforts to enlist the country’s leaders in investigating a political rival.

“It was apparent to all of us that the key to changing the President’s mind on Ukraine was Mr. Giuliani,” Sondland said in his prepared remarks that name Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani.



www.huffpost.com...

Read the full text here: www.documentcloud.org...

Sooooo....Sondland admits that he is disappointed in trump's efforts to enlist the country’s leaders in investigating a political rival.

Huh?

Imagine that.

Well, even thought trump tried to block his testimony, I guess he is a pretty good guy after all, trying to get the truth out about this corrupt administration.

Impeachment by thanksgiving, anyone?




posted on Oct, 17 2019 @ 09:43 AM
link   
a reply to: HanyManny



Impeachment by thanksgiving, anyone?


Good luck with that!!! Tick.. tock...



posted on Oct, 17 2019 @ 09:44 AM
link   
It's just leaks so far and will continue till spring. Just leaks




posted on Oct, 17 2019 @ 09:46 AM
link   
a reply to: HanyManny
Disappointed is the standard?
Really?
You need a "reminder"?



posted on Oct, 17 2019 @ 09:46 AM
link   
a reply to: HanyManny

Churning out the propaganda this morning in between immigration cases in CA I see.

Looking forward to your demise and ultimately your leaving ATS in shame.

lololololol



posted on Oct, 17 2019 @ 09:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: mikell
It's just leaks so far and will continue till spring. Just leaks



Check out the OP - it has the link to the statement.

Please woke on those reading skills, or have some adult read it to you.



posted on Oct, 17 2019 @ 09:56 AM
link   
From the statement:


But if Ambassador Bolton, Dr. Hill, or others harbored any misgivings about the propriety of what we were doing, they never shared those misgivings with me, then or later. We had regular communications with the NSC about Ukraine, both before and after the July meeting; and neither Ambassador Bolton, Dr. Hill, nor anyone else on the NSC staff ever expressed any concerns to me about our efforts, any complaints about coordination between State and the NSC, or, most importantly, any concerns that we were acting improperly. Furthermore, my boss Secretary Pompeo was very supportive of our Ukraine



First, I knew that a public embrace of anti-corruption reforms by Ukraine was one of the pre-conditions for securing a White House meeting with President Zelensky. My view was, and has always been, that such Western reforms are consistent with U.S. support for rule of law in Ukraine going back decades, under both Republican and Democrat administrations. Nothing about that request raised any red flags for me, Ambassador Volker, or Ambassador Taylor.



posted on Oct, 17 2019 @ 09:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: HanyManny

originally posted by: mikell
It's just leaks so far and will continue till spring. Just leaks



Check out the OP - it has the link to the statement.

Please woke on those reading skills, or have some adult read it to you.


Maybe you should "woke" on your typing skills, or have a real attorney type it for you. Funny that "woke" is what you typed instead of "work".

lolololol



posted on Oct, 17 2019 @ 10:00 AM
link   

Although Mr. Giuliani did mention the name “Burisma” in August 2019, I understood that Burisma was one of many examples of Ukrainian companies run by oligarchs and lacking the type of corporate governance structures found in Western companies. I did not know until more recent press reports that Hunter Biden was on the board of Burisma. Again, I recall no discussions with any State Department or White House official about Former Vice President Biden or his son, nor do I recall taking part in any effort to encourage an investigation into the Bidens. NSC/Ambassador Bolton Fourth, I worked hard to keep the National Security Council, including Ambassador Bolton and Dr. Hill, apprised of our Ukrainian efforts. In fact, sometime in June 2019, Secretary Perry organized a conference call with Ambassador Bolton, Ambassador Volker, myself, and others. We went over the entire Ukraine strategy with Ambassador Bolton, who agreed with the strategy and signed off on it. Indeed, over the spring and summer of 2019, I received nothing but cordial responses from Ambassador Bolton and Dr. Hill. Nothing was ever raised to me about any concerns regarding our Ukrainian policy. While I have not seen Dr. Hill’s testimony, I am surprised and disappointed by the media reports of her critical comments. To put it clearly: Neither she nor Ambassador Bolton shared any critical comments with me, even after our July 10, 2019 White House meeting. And so, I have to view her testimony — if the media reports are accurate — as the product of hindsight and in the context of the widely known tensions between the NSC, on the one hand, and the State



posted on Oct, 17 2019 @ 10:07 AM
link   
Funny that the legal eagle OP didn't even take the due diligence to read what she linked.



posted on Oct, 17 2019 @ 10:07 AM
link   
so uh when unelected bureaucrats have differences of opinion with the cic about foreign policy it is now an impeachable offense?
that is the new standard?



posted on Oct, 17 2019 @ 10:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: HanyManny

originally posted by: mikell
It's just leaks so far and will continue till spring. Just leaks



Check out the OP - it has the link to the statement.

Please woke on those reading skills, or have some adult read it to you.


Maybe you should take some of your own advice...

This is what the testimony ACTUALLY says (your source):


Indeed, Secretary Perry, Ambassador Volker, and I were disappointed by our May 23,
2019 White House debriefing. We strongly believed that a call and White House meeting
between Presidents Trump and Zelensky was important and that these should be scheduled
promptly and without any pre-conditions. We were also disappointed by the President’s
direction that we involve Mr. Giuliani. Our view was that the men and women of the State
Department, not the President’s personal lawyer, should take responsibility for all aspects of U.S.
foreign policy towards Ukraine. However, based on the President’s direction, we were faced
with a choice: We could abandon the goal of a White House meeting for President Zelensky,
which we all believed was crucial to strengthening U.S.-Ukrainian ties and furthering long-held
U.S. foreign policy goals in the region; or we could do as President Trump directed and talk to
Mr. Giuliani to address the President’s concerns.

We chose the latter path, which seemed to all of us – Secretary Perry, Ambassador
Volker, and myself – to be the better alternative.


So your quote from your OP was NOT from Sondland's testimony, it was the Huff Post's spin on it...

Your source goes on to say:


After a series of delays, on July 25, 2019, President Trump called President Zelensky to
congratulate him on the recently concluded Ukraine parliamentary elections, which in Ukraine
are separate from the Presidential elections. This was an important call, and I was pleased to
hear that it occurred.

But let me emphasize: I was not on that July 25, 2019 call and I did not see a transcript
of that call until September 25, 2019, when the White House publicly released it. None of the
brief and general call summaries I received contained any mention of Burisma or former Vice
President Biden, nor even suggested that President Trump had made any kind of request of
President Zelensky.
I had heard afterwards that the July 25, 2019 call went well in solidifying a
relationship between the two leaders.


He goes on to say...


First, I knew that a public embrace of anti-corruption reforms by Ukraine was one of the
pre-conditions for securing a White House meeting with President Zelensky.
My view was, and
has always been, that such Western reforms are consistent with U.S. support for rule of law in
Ukraine going back decades, under both Republican and Democrat administrations. Nothing
about that request raised any red flags for me, Ambassador Volker, or Ambassador Taylor.


And...


In these short conversations, Mr. Giuliani emphasized that the President wanted a public statement from
President Zelensky committing Ukraine to look into anticorruption issues. Mr. Giuliani
specifically mentioned the 2016 election (including the DNC server) and Burisma as two anticorruption investigatory topics of importance for the President.

...
Although Mr. Giuliani did mention the name “Burisma” in August 2019, I understood
that Burisma was one of many examples of Ukrainian companies run by oligarchs and lacking
the type of corporate governance structures found in Western companies. I did not know until
more recent press reports that Hunter Biden was on the board of Burisma.


And here is the hill shot to your OP and your entire post:


Sixth, to the best of my recollection, I do not recall any discussions with the White House
on withholding U.S. security assistance from Ukraine in return for assistance with the President’s
2020 re-election campaign.


Maybe you should "woke on those reading skills" or find the nearest adult to help you learn how to read. You clearly do not care about facts given in written testimony and cherry pick what fits your narrative.

~Namaste



posted on Oct, 17 2019 @ 10:11 AM
link   
a reply to: HanyManny

What is clear to me is that Biden conspired to launder money for personal gain via a quid pro quo with the former president of Ukraine. Zelensy was elected snd biden realized he will be in trouble if an investigation ensues. Four days later he announced he was running for president. Now Trump cannot investigate because he is running for office? Listen man, it doesnt matter if he is a political rival. If hes clean then he has nothing to worry about. I dont think he is though, and if you were a reasonable person you should allow the investigation just like Trump let the Mueller nothingburger drag on for years.
edit on 17-10-2019 by drewlander because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 17 2019 @ 10:12 AM
link   
a reply to: HanyManny

Hey maybe you should get that letter your senpai wrote and hang it up, hahaha.



posted on Oct, 17 2019 @ 10:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Lysergic

Bwahaaahaaaahaaaa!!!



posted on Oct, 17 2019 @ 10:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: HanyManny

Gordon Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union, criticized President Donald Trump’s dealings with Ukraine, saying he was “disappointed” in his efforts to enlist the country’s leaders in investigating a political rival.


Sooooo....Sondland admits that he is disappointed in trump's efforts to enlist the country’s leaders in investigating a political rival.


Please provide the exact text matching what is mentioned in your OP.

Show ATS, in Sondland's testimony and in HIS WORDS (not yours or Huff Post), where he said Trump enlisted the Ukraine's leaders to investigate a political rival?

All you are doing is showing everyone exactly what our complaint is about the mass media and how they take one word and twist the context to fit a narrative. You just did the same exact thing.

~Namaste



posted on Oct, 17 2019 @ 10:37 AM
link   
a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

The OP made what we've been arguing about crystal clear with this thread.

It's a shining example of omission and obfuscation.



posted on Oct, 17 2019 @ 11:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: HanyManny
Impeachment by thanksgiving, anyone?


I'll give you 10 to 1 on that, just PM the amount you wanna bet.



posted on Oct, 17 2019 @ 06:03 PM
link   
Must be paid by the thread. Might I make a small recommendation. When I post a rebuttal to a political argument, I never use a source that slants in the same direction my argument leans.

In other words, I would never use Fox as a source to bolster a fact like Hillary had classified material on unclassified networks. Instead, I would find a source more aligned and leaning toward my opponents voice. Makes for a stronger argument, harder to claim as biased source.

The Huff Post is a notorious leftist socialist rag known to publish stories based on seance sessions held in the DNC Clinton graveyard after midnight behind the DNC headquarters building. One greatly strengthened your argument to find sources at least relevant. Huff Po is not one of those, seems a lawyer would know how to do this.
edit on 10/17/2019 by DJMSN because: corrections



new topics

top topics



 
4

log in

join