Top diplomat in Ukraine gave "damning" testimony

a reply to: shooterbrody

Like prior testimonies, nothing there. Impeachment vote delayed indefinitely. On the other hand, Trump's ammo magazine is still full.

a reply to: Extorris
en.wikipedia.org...

Over four hours later, at 5:19:35 AM,[15] in his response to Taylor, Gordon Sondland, the United States Ambassador to the European Union, responded that the charge is "incorrect." "Bill, I believe you are incorrect about President Trump's intentions. The President has been crystal clear: no quid pro quo’s of any kind. The President is trying to evaluate whether Ukraine is truly going to adopt the transparency and reforms that President Zelensky promised during his campaign."[15] He then suggested Taylor call the Executive Secretary of the United States Department of State about any concerns[16]: "I suggest we stop the back and forth by text If you still have concerns I recommend you give Lisa Kenna or S a call to discuss them directly. Thanks."[17] In his testimony during the impeachment inquiry Sondland noted that it was only out of his deep respect for Taylor that he tried to address Taylor's concerns.[18] Taylor gave a deposition before a closed-door session of the House Intelligence Committee on October 22, 2019.[19]

sondland seems to have disputed what taylor had to say so tis back to he said he said basically

a reply to: Extorris

they didnt try to impeach him for an a affair they tried to impeach him for lying about it , but i assume this impeachment attempt will get about as far as clintons at worst perhaps the house but no way the senate votes to impeach him

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: shooterbrody

Like prior testimonies, nothing there. Impeachment vote delayed indefinitely. On the other hand, Trump's ammo magazine is still full.

oh there is a lot of opinion and rumors
the witness had an on record opinion as to policy prior to taking the job, when policy appeared to change course the "problem" apprears
too bad the witness does not form policy or control diplomacy

as far as trump goes, if incompetence were impeachable he would be gone

originally posted by: RalagaNarHallas
a reply to: Extorris
en.wikipedia.org...

Over four hours later, at 5:19:35 AM,[15] in his response to Taylor, Gordon Sondland, the United States Ambassador to the European Union, responded that the charge is "incorrect." "Bill, I believe you are incorrect about President Trump's intentions. The President has been crystal clear: no quid pro quo’s of any kind. The President is trying to evaluate whether Ukraine is truly going to adopt the transparency and reforms that President Zelensky promised during his campaign."[15] He then suggested Taylor call the Executive Secretary of the United States Department of State about any concerns[16]: "I suggest we stop the back and forth by text If you still have concerns I recommend you give Lisa Kenna or S a call to discuss them directly. Thanks."[17] In his testimony during the impeachment inquiry Sondland noted that it was only out of his deep respect for Taylor that he tried to address Taylor's concerns.[18] Taylor gave a deposition before a closed-door session of the House Intelligence Committee on October 22, 2019.[19]

sondland seems to have disputed what taylor had to say so tis back to he said he said basically

Sondland testified that he was dictated that statement by President Trump when he called him about the concern and "could not say whether it was true or not"

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: shooterbrody

Like prior testimonies, nothing there. Impeachment vote delayed indefinitely. On the other hand, Trump's ammo magazine is still full.

oh there is a lot of opinion and rumors
the witness had an on record opinion as to policy prior to taking the job, when policy appeared to change course the "problem" apprears
too bad the witness does not form policy or control diplomacy

as far as trump goes, if incompetence were impeachable he would be gone

The witness testified that there were TWO distinct diplomat tracts involving Ukraine and the one involving Trump, Sondland, Rudy and himself was kept hidden from US State Department and the rest of Government, including separate communication channels (Snapchat) and calls where Sondland wanted to make sure no one from State was on the call and no one was transcribing.

This was in all relevant ways a Shadow Diplomacy OP. If it was legit why the secrecy?

John Bolton's comment on the Operation says a lot.

"I want nothing to do with whatever drug deal this is"

Former national security adviser John Bolton wanted no part of what he derided as the White House's "drug deal" to pressure Ukraine into investigating Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden,

www.usatoday.com...

From Taylors testimony

In the same July 19 phone call, they gave me an account of the July 10 meeting with the Ukrainian officials at the White House.

Specifically, they told me that Ambassador Sondland had connected “investigations” with an Oval Office meeting for President Zelensky, which so irritated Ambassador Bolton that he abruptly ended the meeting, telling Dr. Hill and Mr. Vindman that they should have nothing to do with domestic politics.

He also directed Dr. Hill to “brief the lawyers.” Dr. Hill said that Ambassador Bolton referred to this as a “drug deal” after the July 10 meeting. Ambassador Bolton opposed a call between President Zelensky and President Trump out of concern that it “would be a disaster.”

www.nytimes.com...

Fiona hill has also confirmed Bolton's reaction.

FOR EFFS SAKE When John Bolton, Trump's hand picked National Security Advisory, stops a meeting and tells someone to notify the lawyers, something might be just a little off.

originally posted by: RalagaNarHallas
a reply to: Extorris

they didnt try to impeach him for an a affair they tried to impeach him for lying about it , but i assume this impeachment attempt will get about as far as clintons at worst perhaps the house but no way the senate votes to impeach him

Maybe or maybe not.

Call me old fashioned, but I am more concerned with a full showing of evidence complete with attorneys for the President present and able to question and cross-examine etc.

The Senate convicting and removing him from office is not the goal. Evidence being presented to the public and scrutinized is the goal. Too much obstruction, lies and cover ups. Air it all out and let the Senate vote as they will.

a reply to: Extorris
opinion and speculation
imo he seems salty from being on the outside

that being said he in no way gets to make the big boy decisions, that belongs to potus
without him directly speaking to potus his testimony is hearsay only

sorry

a reply to: Extorris

I bet you wonder why Bolton was removed..

when he was appointed what was your stance??


I had no comment, what about you?

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Extorris
opinion and speculation
imo he seems salty from being on the outside

Dr. Fiona Hill and Taylor's testimony align on Bolton's response and he was NOT on the outside when he stopped the meeting, described it as a "Drug deal" and directed Fiona Hill to notify lawyers.

He got fired afterward, likely for opposing the "Drug Deal".

that being said he in no way gets to make the big boy decisions, that belongs to potus
without him directly speaking to potus his testimony is hearsay only

His testimony is first hand to what he heard from Sondland and others. Not hearsay.

You seem to think that Sondland decided to run this Shadow Op on his own? Just decided to hide the whole scheme he invented from POTUS and shake down a foreign government for campaign help?

I think that ridiculous, but if so, he broke a gazillion federal laws and is not immune to prosecution and we should expect him to be arrested shortly.

originally posted by: thedigirati
a reply to: Extorris

when he was appointed what was your stance??

I had no comment, what about you?

I thought he was a war hawk and a far right conservative.

I don't think hawks or doves serve an administration well in National Security.

He is also an attorney, a life long conservative and has served in both the Reagan and Bush administrations, worked to get Scalia appointed to SCOTUS and knows what a "Drug Deal" is.

originally posted by: Wayfarer
Sure, Rs want to keep as many Dems out as possible, but they aren't resorting to fake Russia fake Abuse of Power fake News etc to accomplish the goal, they simply point out the differences in policies...

I think some serious reflection is needed if you truly feel like this is all a one-sided thing......
Ok... done...

Nope, it is most definitely all a one-sided thing.

originally posted by: RalagaNarHallas
a reply to: Extorris

they didnt try to impeach him for an a affair they tried to impeach him for lying about it

True. It was a Special Prosecutor investigation into a real estate deal that found nothing illegal and while Ken Starr was deposing Clinton (Something Trump has refused to do) Starr decided to ask if Clinton was messing around with his intern.

THAT led to Lindsay Graham and crew demanding Clinton be convicted and removed from office.

It all seems so, so ridiculous compared to a President using US Military Aid to extort a foreign nation for help with his campaign.

a reply to: Extorris
still all speculation and 2nd hand retelling of conversations
you can attempt to connect the dots all you like it is still hearsay

His testimony is first hand to what he heard from Sondland and others.

did you read his statement?
I did
very little of what was in it is first hand account
most of what is in it is his opinion on foreign policy and policy with ukraine specifically
he does not get to make that
he gets to carry out the decisions made in that respect by others
it appears he did not agree with it
too bad for him

You seem to think that Sondland decided to run this Shadow Op on his own?

what "shadow op"
who told you about such?
is such a "shadow op" illegal?
or is it bad because he disagreed with it?

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Extorris
still all speculation and 2nd hand retelling of conversations
you can attempt to connect the dots all you like it is still hearsay

His testimony is first hand to what he heard from Sondland and others.

did you read his statement?
I did
very little of what was in it is first hand account

Dr. Fiona Hill, who was present at the meeting gave an identical account of what Bolton told her.

a reply to: Extorris
you have a link to her testimony?
I must have missed that
what bolton told her also sounds like 2nd hand

originally posted by: shooterbrody

is such a "shadow op" illegal?
or is it bad because he disagreed with it?

Yes it is illegal.
Snapchat and other private messaging systems used to conduct foreign policy violate the Federal Records Keeping Act and a dozen other laws.

If Sondland, Rudy and Taylor were NOT working at the direction of POTUS, then he is facing a profound amount of Federal Charges..not even sure where to start when someone falsely purports to represent the US Government on Foreign Policy issues complete with a team, gov resources and agenda.

And yes soliciting a foreign government to interfere in a US Domestic election is illegal.

Conspiracy, bribery, extortion?

I am no lawyer, but am pretty sure running a shadow OP to shake down a foreign nation for campaign assistance is illegal.

YOU seem to be claiming if the President did it, it is OK...While also claiming the President did not know or direct it?

If the POTUS directed it, he deserves impeachment. If it is all hearsay by those working for him ex: Sondland etc. Then Sondland has been lying and running his own shadow gov and will be jailed soon.

a reply to: Extorris

This pretty much sums up the likelihood of anything happening...

a reply to: Extorris

Yes it is illegal. Snapchat and other private messaging systems used to conduct foreign policy violate the Federal Records Keeping Act and a dozen other laws.

you will of course demonstrate where such was used for foreign policy?
the statement releases showed texts provided to investigators between americans, I must have missed the foreigners involved.
unless you are of the opinion every conversation they had is "foreign policy"?

If Sondland, Rudy and Taylor were NOT working at the direction of POTUS, then he is facing a profound amount of Federal Charges.

feel free to list away
and provide any evidence of such
i will wait

YOU seem to be claiming if the President did it, it is OK...While also claiming the President did not know or direct it?

the statement from this op lists no such claims
the witness giving the statement lists no conversations with the president
you are making that assumption