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.

 

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

page: 5
16
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 21 2019 @ 07:30 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

He told Rudy..... Rudy told them...
Boss-Consigliere-Soldiers




posted on Nov, 21 2019 @ 07:31 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Do what he promised... what was being requested.



posted on Nov, 21 2019 @ 07:33 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04




Except Trump never said he wanted anything other than Ukraine to fight corruption at any time, ever, to anyone. We have the transcripts


Except he wanted a favor though, in response to Zelensky's announcement of his intent to purchase weapons, it's in the "transcript". That favor, that Trump wanted, was to investigate the Bidens and find the mythical Crowdstrike server, supposedly hidden somewhere in Ukraine.

Trump never mentions corruption in the "transcript".


edit on 21-11-2019 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2019 @ 07:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Do what he promised... what was being requested.

According to Sondland what was being requested was "I want Zelensky to do the right thing. I want him to do what he ran on".

A perfectly acceptable reason for Trump to do what he did. Sorry the witnesses are not saying what you wish they would.



posted on Nov, 21 2019 @ 07:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

He told Rudy..... Rudy told them...
Boss-Consigliere-Soldiers

Too bad its all wonky supposition.
No proof.
All mumbo jumbo bs.

Made up bs from people still buthurt she lost.



posted on Nov, 21 2019 @ 07:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: OccamsRazor04




Except Trump never said he wanted anything other than Ukraine to fight corruption at any time, ever, to anyone. We have the transcripts


Except he wanted a favor though, in response to Zelensky's announcement of his intent to purchase weapons, it's in the "transcript". That favor, that Trump wanted, was to investigate the Bidens and find the mythical Crowdstrike server, supposedly hidden somewhere in Ukraine.

Trump never mentions corruption in the "transcript".


Quote it. I can quote first hand witnesses who actually heard the phone call who say you are wrong. Williams in fact has stated Zelensky brought up Burisma, not Trump. I have already quoted those people, don't make claims to me, show me the evidence.

If you mean when Trump says he heard Biden stopped investigations into corruption to protect his son, and it sounds horrible, well, if that actually happened wouldn't it be horrible?
edit on 21-11-2019 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2019 @ 07:44 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04




Quote it.



President Zelensky: …
I would also like to thank you for your great support in the area of defense. We are ready to continue to cooperate for the next steps, specifically we are almost ready to buy more Javelins from the United States for defense purposes.

The President: I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike… I guess you have one of your wealthy people… The server, they say Ukraine has it.




The other thing, there’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it. It sounds horrible to me.


www.theinternetpatrol.com...


edit on 21-11-2019 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2019 @ 07:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha
So what was offered?
Legal requests.
You have to make up the rest.

Lol



posted on Nov, 21 2019 @ 07:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: RalagaNarHallas
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


I thank you so much, and will be doing a thread and video on this first thing tomorrow, and will give you a shout out if you like.

This one article, from a left leaning source, crushes the idea trump was wrong to call for investigations into burisma and the bidens.

NOt one person pushing for trumps impeachment on this thread has even mentioned this article.



posted on Nov, 21 2019 @ 07:56 AM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody




So what was offered?


The better question is what was subject to Trump's conditional favors.



posted on Nov, 21 2019 @ 07:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: andy06shake
Sondlands testimony painted the same picture as the rest of the witnesses so far.

Yes, it did. No collusion. No treason, extortion, bribery, or any other high crimes or misdemeanors, or even anything remotely potentially impeachable. Thanks for noticing.



posted on Nov, 21 2019 @ 08:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha
So all you got is questions?
Yeah
Impeach on that



posted on Nov, 21 2019 @ 08:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha


Except he wanted a favor though, in response to Zelensky's announcement of his intent to purchase weapons, it's in the "transcript".


Big deal. Trump asked for a favor... favors are given freely with no expectation of anything in return. A favor is done out of the goodness of one's heart. I don't think our president should be asking for a criminal corruption investigation as a "favor" though, it should be a responsibility.

But it's not a "deal" or a "bargain" in which each party agrees to perform a specific act. Nor is it "quid pro quo" which, likewise, is one party promising a specific service or action in exchange for the other party providing a specific service or action. Nor is it a "bribe" in which one party pays the other to do something nefarious in which the bribe is their only benefit. Nor is it "blackmail" in which one party threatens to cause harm to the other party in order to coerce them to perform a specific act.

In the big picture -- the totality of circumstances -- it is impossible to judge Trump's words and actions without a full understanding and recognition of the words and deeds preceding his words and actions. The Ukrainian corruption claims and accusations did not start with Trump.
edit on 21-11-2019 by Boadicea because: punctuation



posted on Nov, 21 2019 @ 08:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea



Big deal. Trump asked for a favor... favors are given freely with no expectation of anything in return.



President Donald Trump’s defenders had little to work with on Wednesday, as U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland delivered explosive testimony to the House Intelligence Committee.

The ambassador told the impeachment inquiry that he had told Ukrainians that if they wanted $391 million in military aid released to them, they would have to announce investigations that Trump was demanding they announce.

Top officials in the White House were all aware of what was unfolding in the scheme, Sondland said, and the orders for at least one of the quid pro quo deals came directly from Trump’s personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani.


slate.com...



posted on Nov, 21 2019 @ 08:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

I shall quote Sondland himself:


“After you testified, Chairman [Adam] Schiff ran out and gave a press conference and said he gets to impeach the president of the United States because of your testimony and if you pull up CNN today, right now, their banner says ‘Sondland ties Trump to withholding aid,'” Turner said. “Is that your testimony today, Ambassador Sondland? That you have evidence that Donald Trump tied the investigations to the aid? Because I don’t think you’re saying that.”

“I’ve said repeatedly Congressman, I was presuming,” Sondland replied.


“No one on this planet told you that President Trump was tying aid to investigations, yes or no?”

“Yes,” Sondland responded.

“So, you really have no testimony today that ties President Trump to a scheme to withhold aid from Ukraine in exchange for these investigations?” Turner pressed.

“Other than my own presumption,” Sondland replied.

There is a video of Sondland's ACTUAL testimony at the link:

Rep Mike Turner Gets Witness To Admit Bombshell, Debunks CNN Headline In Real Time

ETA: Occam's several posts at the bottom of the previous page -- including quotes/testimony from other officials that there was no quid pro quo demands -- are also quite relevant.

And for the record, I don't have any problem at all with our president refusing to give foreign aid -- our hard-earned tax dollars! -- to a nation that refuses to investigation and prosecute criminal corruption. Including criminal corruption on the part of our sitting Vice President. And especially when that former Vice President is also running for President.
edit on 21-11-2019 by Boadicea because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2019 @ 08:19 AM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

It doesn't matter if he said he was "presuming". The Ukrainians got the message! Do you understand that?

Do you think that Ambassador Sondland pulled that little plan out of his ass?

ETA:

Mick Mulvaney, the acting White House chief of staff, acknowledged Thursday that President Donald Trump held up a military-aid package to Ukraine in part because he wanted the Ukrainian government to investigate unfounded conspiracy theories related to the 2016 election.


www.businessinsider.com...
edit on 21-11-2019 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2019 @ 08:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
Every single first hand witness, every last one, has said there was no quid-pro-quo.

We really need to stop using that term as if it is a bad thing.

Mulvaney was right. Quid pro quos do happen all the time, and not only should we 'get over it', we should acknowledge that there is nothing inherently wrong with it.

Every single negotiation of any kind of agreement between nations involves quid pro quos. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that it is impossible for any meaningful agreement not to involve quid pro quos.

The question is more properly, was the quid pro quo unethical or illegal in nature.

Asking a country to declare their intentions with regard to rooting out corruption before handing them almost 400 million bucks, especially when the law allocating the money itself delegates to the President the duty and responsibility to make sure the money is not used for corrupt purposes, is a quid pro quo, but one that is not only reasonable and appropriate, it is, I believe, required by the very law that allocates the funds.



posted on Nov, 21 2019 @ 08:22 AM
link   
a reply to: tanstaafl

And no credible defense from team Trump whatsoever.

He's already being impeached, no potential about that.

All those witnesses are all singing a very similar tune, and its not in praise of the bad orange Man.

If he's done nothing wrong whats he panicking for and trying to discredit nevermind intimidate witnesses on the stand?
edit on 21-11-2019 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2019 @ 08:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Where does Trump say the money is contingent on anything? I keep reading the quote you posted, it's not there. If Biden did in fact hinder the prosecution of corruption to protect his son that would indeed be terrible right?



posted on Nov, 21 2019 @ 08:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Boadicea

It doesn't matter if he said he was "presuming". The Ukrainians got the message! Do you understand that?

Do you think that Ambassador Sondland pulled that little plan out of his ass?


In that case, Sondland's presumption was passed onto the Ukrainians... not Trump's official orders. That's really all you are actually saying.

Do YOU understand that???

There is absolutely no proof of a quid pro quo. And I'm saying this as someone who wouldn't even have a problem with such a quid pro quo!!! Even if it were proven, I would consider it the responsible execution of the president's powers and authority.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join