As Sondland testified, a misleading Ukraine story spread among conservatives on social media

a reply to: Lumenari

Is Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) Sondland's boss?

If so so, you may have a case. Take it up with the House ethics committee.

originally posted by: ErEhWoN

As for it all coming out in the end, I do hope that this goes to the Senate so we can get an actual look at actual facts.

a reply to: Lumenari

This is all sworn testimony. It's not going to change if it goes to the Senate.

This ain't the Trump administration, there will be no 'alternative facts'.

The majority of the "sworn testimony" thus far is opinions and hearsay.

Neither is admissible.

That and there is the whole Constitutionality of not allowing an American citizen due process...

So if it gets to the Senate we'll get actual questioning by both sides of the political spectrum.

Instead of Schiff's Star Chamber fiasco.

I don't think you understand what's coming if the Senate even entertains the idea of going forward with the impeachment proceedings...

If you check my posting history, I hoped and prayed that the Democrats would do an impeachment inquiry.

Now I hope and pray that it gets to the Senate.

a reply to: Lumenari

Well, que sera sera, i suppose.

That and there is the whole Constitutionality of not allowing an American citizen due process...

a reply to: Lumenari

Trump and his allies often claim that the president’s “due process” or “Sixth Amendment” rights are being trampled.

As this argument goes, Trump is being denied his constitutional rights because he can’t call or cross-examine witnesses in the House impeachment inquiry’s closed-door depositions, his attorneys aren’t allowed in the room, and he can’t question the anonymous whistleblower who filed a complaint at the center of the investigation.

This is a good case study in how politicians use legalese to mislead the public. We’ve given these claims Four Pinocchios.

The Fifth and Fourteenth amendments guarantee due process rights, but those rights apply only in court proceedings in which someone may “be deprived of life, liberty, or property.” Impeachment is a different ballgame that turns on congressional votes. The maximum penalty is removal from office.

Under the Constitution, the House has the sole power of impeachment and the Senate the sole power to try impeachment charges, with a two-thirds majority required for conviction. The common analogy is that the House acts as a prosecutor filing charges, and then the Senate holds a trial.

The House and Senate have wide discretion under the Constitution to set up their rules and processes for impeachment. They’re not required by law to afford the president, or any officeholder facing impeachment, the same rights as criminal defendants or litigants in civil cases.

The Sixth Amendment includes bedrock constitutional protections: the right to counsel, to call witnesses, to confront accusers and to a speedy public trial with an impartial jury. But the text of the amendment starts by limiting those rights to defendants facing “criminal prosecutions.” Impeachment is not the same.

So if it gets to the Senate we'll get actual questioning by both sides of the political spectrum.

So its only Democrats asking questions? I thought Jordan and Nunes were Repbs. They're question may not be effective, but they are given the opportunity.

I don't think you understand what's coming if the Senate even entertains the idea of going forward with the impeachment fiasco...

The Senate doesn't have the option to "entertain" the idea. They HAVE to. I don't think you understand.

originally posted by: ErEhWoN
a reply to: Lumenari

Is Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) Sondland's boss?

If so so, you may have a case. Take it up with the House ethics committee.

So A Democratic House Representative who is actively hurting Sondland's finances and publicly ridiculing him is just fine with you as long as he's not Sondland's boss, but yet Sondland is a witness in the impeachment inquiry.

I don't think you really thought that through.

As for the House Ethics Committee... it is currently being run by a Democrat.

Isn't that technically a conflict of interest?

As for the House Ethics Committee... it is currently being run by a politician.

Talk about an oxymoron...

a reply to: Lumenari

FIFY.

a reply to: ErEhWoN

I want nothing....

Proof that the whole hearing and wannabe-impeachment attempt is a joke.

www.youtube.com...

a reply to: CraftyArrow
Sigh.....that was AFTER knowledge of the whistle blower complaint.

What do you expect him to say? The gig was up at that point.

originally posted by: ErEhWoN
a reply to: CraftyArrow
Sigh.....that was AFTER knowledge of the whistle blower complaint.

What do you expect him to say? The gig was up at that point.

Um.. the whistle blower complaint was hearsay.

So it wasn't actually a complaint at all.

Just a way for Schiff to start the next round of "Orange Man Bad."

Which is why Schiff orchestrated it in the first place.

This will all come out.

Again, I hope and pray that the Senate gets involved.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
No way the timing on this can be a coincidence.

This was orchestrated to take the focus off of Sondland throwing everyone under the bus.

I thought you were supposed to tell the truth before Congress, not protect your own.

Sounds like Sondland thought the same.

So if the aid was released anytime after whistleblower complaint was made it would be suspect?
Do I really have to go into the endless hypotheticals that would dispel your theory?
Sigh.....

originally posted by: ErEhWoN
a reply to: CraftyArrow
Sigh.....that was AFTER knowledge of the whistle blower complaint.

What do you expect him to say? The gig was up at that point.

Now the left know what it’s like to be a Trump supporter for the past 3 - 4 years. They make up false stories like Trump is a Russian agent, he banned all Muslims, thinks all immigrants are rapists. I could literally go on all day and what is the difference.

When the left make up false stories they don’t retract them or wait days later to retract by adding a sentence at the bottom of the original article. When the right makes up a story they are banned from Twitter like the News agency in your OP. So excuse me while I roll my eyes to your outrage over a false story covering the obviously corrupt Bidens.

They could not handle it...they would turn to the press for help....and get it.

originally posted by: Middleoftheroad
Now the left know what it’s like to be a Trump supporter for the past 3 - 4 years. They make up false stories like Trump is a Russian agent, he banned all Muslims, thinks all immigrants are rapists. I could literally go on all day and what is the difference.

When the left make up false stories they don’t retract them or wait days later to retract by adding a sentence at the bottom of the original article. When the right makes up a story they are banned from Twitter like the News agency in your OP. So excuse me while I roll my eyes to your outrage over a false story covering the obviously corrupt Bidens.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Grimpachi
No way the timing on this can be a coincidence.

This was orchestrated to take the focus off of Sondland throwing everyone under the bus.

I thought you were supposed to tell the truth before Congress, not protect your own.

Sounds like Sondland thought the same.

Sondland has been walking a fine line. There is no doubt he is still trying to protect himself.

originally posted by: Grimpachi

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Grimpachi
No way the timing on this can be a coincidence.

This was orchestrated to take the focus off of Sondland throwing everyone under the bus.

I thought you were supposed to tell the truth before Congress, not protect your own.

Sounds like Sondland thought the same.

Sondland has been walking a fine line. There is no doubt he is still trying to protect himself.

So, are you saying that Sondland was not telling the truth?

If so, how do you know?

Well to be fair to the truth : Sondland said he thought it was a quid pro quo,
however he was never told that it was a quid pro quo....he just assumed and was the only one who testified before congress to come to that conclusion.
When he realized this he was "walking a fine line" to explain himself.
I hope this helps, things are sometimes nuanced.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Grimpachi

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Grimpachi
No way the timing on this can be a coincidence.

This was orchestrated to take the focus off of Sondland throwing everyone under the bus.

I thought you were supposed to tell the truth before Congress, not protect your own.

Sounds like Sondland thought the same.

Sondland has been walking a fine line. There is no doubt he is still trying to protect himself.

So, are you saying that Sondland was not telling the truth?

If so, how do you know?

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Grimpachi

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Grimpachi
No way the timing on this can be a coincidence.

This was orchestrated to take the focus off of Sondland throwing everyone under the bus.

I thought you were supposed to tell the truth before Congress, not protect your own.

Sounds like Sondland thought the same.

Sondland has been walking a fine line. There is no doubt he is still trying to protect himself.

So, are you saying that Sondland was not telling the truth?

If so, how do you know?

Never said he didn't tell the truth, but we know the first two depositions from him didn't tell the whole truth and from his own statement at the beginning, he is giving himself room to leave out things that if exposed he can excuse for not having his notes.

I have not had access to all of my phone records, State Departmentemails, and other State Department documents. And I was told I could not work with my EUStaff to pull together the relevant files. Having access to the State Department materials wouldhave been very helpful to me in trying to reconstruct with whom I spoke and met, when, andwhat was said.As Ambassador, I have had hundreds of meetings and calls with individuals. But I amnot a note taker, nor am I a memo writer. Never have been. My job requires speaking withheads of state and senior government officials every day.


3
Prior Testimony
Although today is my first public testimony on the Ukraine matters, this is
not
my firsttime cooperating with this Committee. As you know, I have already provided ten hours ofdeposition testimony. I did so despite directives from the White House and the State Departmentthat I refuse to appear, as many others have done. I agreed to testify because I respect the gravityof the moment and believe I have an obligation to account fully for my role in these events.
Lack of Documents
But, I also must acknowledge that this process has been challenging and, in many respects, less than fair. I have not had access to all of my phone records, State Department emails, and other State Department documents. And I was told I could not work with my EU Staff to pull together the relevant files. Having access to the State Department materials would have been very helpful to me in trying to reconstruct with whom I spoke and met, when, andwhat was said.

As Ambassador, I have had hundreds of meetings and calls with individuals. But I am not a note taker, nor am I a memo writer. Never have been. My job requires speaking with heads of state and senior government officials every day. Talking with foreign leaders might be memorable to some people. But this is my job. I do it all the time. My lawyers and I have made multiple requests to the State Department and the WhiteHouse for these materials. Yet, these materials were not provided to me. They have also refused to share these materials with this Committee. These documents are not classified and, in fairness, should have been made available. In absence of these materials my memory has not been perfect.

That excerpt from his opening statement IMO is him trying to cover his arse for the past things he left out and is meant to give him room if more info comes out showing he left out even more.

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: ErEhWoN

Twitter is "on it"!

You may want to look at Fiddler Forest's replies to his post...

Don't you just hate that crap? Hardly a epiphany by any stretch but we're being manipulated and deceived in every direction possible.

Two phrases always come to mind when I see things like this.

He Who Controls the Information Controls the World.

'Those who control the present, control the past and those who control the past control the future.'George Orwell —

a reply to: Grambler

yeah i figured it would be a good article to present but seems to not be getting too much traction other then from you, perhaps a good issue to cover on your youtube shows you do that are pretty good if i dont say so my self

originally posted by: ErEhWoN

He admits trump told him the opposite, that he didnt want a quid pro quo.

a reply to: Grambler

Yeah, AFTER the whistle blower complaint came out.
Of course he would say that, they knew they were being watched then.

Whistle blower complaint came out sept 26

Trumps call where he said he wanted nothing was sept 9.

Even if trump did hear about a complaint, he didnt know the exact nature of it, and sondland admitted trump never told him once even in previous conversations to conditioned aid on investigations.