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.

 

Trump Amb. to EU Sondland reverses himself on Ukraine quid pro quo

page: 13
22
<< 10  11  12    14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 6 2019 @ 09:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: RazorV66
a reply to: Extorris

Your thread is already null and void before it gets off the ground for quoting Politico and CNN.
How convenient he couldn’t recall anything the first time he testified but now he is saying it was all illegal.
Swing and a miss.


Yeah, because he didn't think anybody else from his group would rat out the president. Now that they are he is backtracking to cover his rear. Pretty simple.




posted on Nov, 7 2019 @ 10:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: charolais

originally posted by: RazorV66
a reply to: Extorris

Your thread is already null and void before it gets off the ground for quoting Politico and CNN.
How convenient he couldn’t recall anything the first time he testified but now he is saying it was all illegal.
Swing and a miss.


Yeah, because he didn't think anybody else from his group would rat out the president. Now that they are he is backtracking to cover his rear. Pretty simple.


As damning as Sondland's revision to his testimony was, now admitting Quid Pro Quo, he seems to be only offering the least amount to avoid jail.

He should be called back to testify publicly under oath.



posted on Nov, 7 2019 @ 03:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Extorris

My friend,

Some day you will realize that the only thing that matters at the moment is public opinion. Then you will see through the smoke and mirrors. However, right now it seems you are lost in the thick of it.

The Democrats behind this impeachment know there was no quid pro quo. They know Sondland's opinion doesn't matter. They know they have nothing because the president of Ukraine (the victim) already confirmed there was no quid pro quo, and that is the only person that matters here, the victim of the crime.

If witnesses believe they observed a crime being committed between the suspect (Trump) and the victim (Zelensky) but the victim says "there was no crime", then it doesn't matter what the witnesses believe. Their opinion of the events must have been wrong.

Once you see through the smoke and mirrors, you will see this is all just a long drawn out show to convince the public Trump is a bad person, so the public wont vote for him. That is all the last few years of attacks on Trump has been. The truth and facts don't matter at all, nor does the outcome of the Mueller investigation, the outcome of the Stormy Daniels drama, or the outcome of this impeachment attempt. The outcome has never been the true goal. They don't care if he gets impeached, that is just a bonus. What really matters is what they can peddle to the public so their opinion is changed. Its a very simple form of mind control. It sounds cliche, but that is all any of this is.

It is one giant facade composed of "damning" headlines, breaking news titles, sound bites, and twisted facts and rumors, etc. so the public will form a specific opinion. An opinion they think is their own but really is not. It really is that simple and pathetic. The sooner you realize that, the sooner you will disconnect from whatever source of this mind control you subscribe to, or better see the show for what it really is. Peak behind the curtains, behind the fake backdrop, see the cheesy plot and bad lines.



posted on Nov, 7 2019 @ 03:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: More1ThanAny1
a reply to: Extorris

If witnesses believe they observed a crime being committed between the suspect (Trump) and the victim (Zelensky) but the victim says "there was no crime", then it doesn't matter what the witnesses believe. Their opinion of the events must have been wrong.


Participants, not witnesses.

And President Zelensky has chosen his words carefully and they are not "there was no crime".

I do recognize smoke and mirrors, but I don't think that strategy will work in this scenario.



posted on Nov, 7 2019 @ 05:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Extorris

originally posted by: More1ThanAny1
a reply to: Extorris

If witnesses believe they observed a crime being committed between the suspect (Trump) and the victim (Zelensky) but the victim says "there was no crime", then it doesn't matter what the witnesses believe. Their opinion of the events must have been wrong.


Participants, not witnesses.

And President Zelensky has chosen his words carefully and they are not "there was no crime".

I do recognize smoke and mirrors, but I don't think that strategy will work in this scenario.


Participating witnesses. there ya go.



posted on Nov, 7 2019 @ 06:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Extorris

“There was no blackmail” Mr Zelensky said during a press conference on Thursday.

Participants... How does one participate in something that didn't happen?

Lets say you were a police officer, and you got called to a scene by a witness (whistleblower) that says they witnessed an assault. You get to the scene and the victim of the assault (Zelensky) says "there was no assault", and the main suspect (Trump) also says they didn't assault the victim. Then suddenly, out of the shadows, other witnesses (Sondland) say they participated in the assault that didn't happen.

...wouldn't you find that odd?



posted on Nov, 7 2019 @ 09:23 PM
link   
a reply to: More1ThanAny1

No Hypothetical's required.
There is a phone transcript and for those that fail to interpret the Obvious we have a dozen plus "participant witnesses" explaining in sworn testimony precisely what happened and for those that doubt the sworn testimony of those Dozen officials, we have text messages and for those that continue to deny all of that evidence, Officials in Ukraine are beginning to speak up and tell the same story.

Ukraine’s Zelensky Bowed to Trump’s Demands, Until Luck Spared Him
Aides to Ukraine’s leader, Volodymyr Zelensky, decided that military aid and support for peace talks outweighed the risks of appearing to take sides in American politics

www.nytimes.com...



posted on Nov, 8 2019 @ 01:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Extorris

Everything you said is smoke and mirrors spoon fed to you by the same old sources.

Yes we have the phone transcript. Not once was any withholding of aid mentioned in the call between Trump and Zelensky. In fact, Zelensky mentioned he wants to drain the swamp in Ukraine too with support from the U.S. long before Trump asked for any favor or cooperation from him. Zelensky wants connections, not money.

It's unfortunate the dozens of "participant witnesses" you claim to exist are being misquoted, taken out of context, and or they are murky from the depths of the swamp. All this support you seem to be claiming exists is nothing but slight of hand and distractions to convince you what to believe.

Even the words from Sondland are weak at best. He just "presumed" the aid holdup was linked to investigations. He doesn’t admit to being told that by anyone. But that doesn't matter to the controlled media, they will twist his words as if he was directly involved and participated and got word directly from Trump. Even you think that, because you were fooled.

By the way, did you hear the recent news that Obama's Ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch, perjured herself under oath? Probably not, because it wasn't on your spoon.

Don't be so gullible.

I don't subscribe to nytimes.com - find a more reputable source.
edit on 8-11-2019 by More1ThanAny1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2019 @ 09:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: More1ThanAny1
a reply to: Extorris

Everything you said is smoke and mirrors spoon fed to you by the same old sources.

....

It's unfortunate the dozens of "participant witnesses" you claim to exist are being misquoted, taken out of context, and or they are murky from the depths of the swamp. All this support you seem to be claiming exists is nothing but slight of hand and distractions to convince you what to believe.



"Baghdad Bob" Was the information Minister of Iraq during the first Iraq war when US Troops rolled over Baghdad.

He was amazing to watch.

One time he gave a televised interview to reporters claiming there were no US troops in Baghdad while US tanks rolled by in the background.

Some of his best quotes:




"There are no American infidels in Baghdad. Never!"

"Our initial assessment is that they will all die."

"They're not even within 100 miles of Baghdad. They are not in any place. They hold no place in Iraq. This is an illusion ... they are trying to sell to the others an illusion."

"They tried to bring a small number of tanks and personnel carriers in through al-Durah but they were surrounded and most of their infidels had their throats cut."
"I can say, and I am responsible for what I am saying, that they have started to commit suicide under the walls of Baghdad. We will encourage them to commit more suicides quickly."



posted on Nov, 8 2019 @ 10:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
WoW now he oh-so-suddenly just happens to "remember" something 😃 🤓


Mulvaney "clarifies" = Not Good.

Sondland "clarifies" = Good



posted on Nov, 8 2019 @ 11:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: xuenchen
WoW now he oh-so-suddenly just happens to "remember" something 😃 🤓


Mulvaney "clarifies" = Not Good.

Sondland "clarifies" = Good


Only one of them was under oath at penalty of perjury.



posted on Nov, 8 2019 @ 12:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Extorris

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: xuenchen
WoW now he oh-so-suddenly just happens to "remember" something 😃 🤓


Mulvaney "clarifies" = Not Good.

Sondland "clarifies" = Good


Only one of them was under oath at penalty of perjury.


Did Sondland say that there was a quid pro quo?
Not that a quid pro quo is an issue - no crime or abuse of power if true... but i'd like you to highlight where Sondland said there was a quid pro quo.



posted on Nov, 8 2019 @ 12:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

That was nothing compared to the outright assault on the process that was executed by Russia as outlined in the Mueller report. I know, I know...



posted on Nov, 8 2019 @ 12:16 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

Ha ha, We didn't do it but even if we did its not a crime.
Same song different day.



posted on Nov, 8 2019 @ 12:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: UKTruth

Ha ha, We didn't do it but even if we did its not a crime.
Same song different day.


There is no crime in demanding that a foreign nation do something in return for aid, but regardless there is no evidence that your President demanded anything in return for aid.
It's a simple song of truth.

edit on 8/11/2019 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2019 @ 12:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Grambler

That was nothing compared to the outright assault on the process that was executed by Russia as outlined in the Mueller report. I know, I know...


Credit for not being too embarrassed by your utter humiliation to bring up the Russia Collusion Delusion again.
Most of your ilk are in hiding, trying to clean the egg off their faces.



posted on Nov, 8 2019 @ 12:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
WoW now he oh-so-suddenly just happens to "remember" something 😃 🤓


Threat of jail time will do that to a person.
Funny how his updated testimony jived with the testimony of other witnesses.
And he did not change his original testimony so much as add to it.
You know he was a big contributor trump's inauguration right? Not exactly a never trumper or trump hater.



posted on Nov, 8 2019 @ 12:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

All with zer0 proof of anything as usual just like Dr Ford 😃



posted on Nov, 8 2019 @ 12:53 PM
link   
a reply to: spiritualarchitect

Strangely enough the man donated a million dollars to trumps inauguration fund and won an ambassadorship because of it.

Pretty hard to turn the man who originally left out any incriminating information in his testimony to protect trump until he heard that other witnesses were not leaving it out.

Your claim is nonsense. Where did it come from if not from your imagination?



posted on Nov, 8 2019 @ 12:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: spiritualarchitect
Strangly enough, Amb. to EU Sondland just received a $400,000 deposit into his bank account from the Clinton Foundation.


I have tried every way I can to find any story about this and I cannot.
Lots of stories about the Clinton Foundation but nothing about this.
It is against terms and conditions to post information you know is not true.
Please source this claim.



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 10  11  12    14  15 >>

log in

join