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: 6
16
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 21 2019 @ 08:25 AM
link   
a reply to: tanstaafl

I don't disagree, and it's a separate argument that could be made. We don't even have to get into it though because EVERY last witness has said there was none. So the fact quid-pro-quo is not even necessarily wrong doesn't matter.




posted on Nov, 21 2019 @ 08:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

All you need to do is post a quote from anyone involved in listening to the phone call and quote them saying there was wrongdoing. We have their testimony, and they were very unflattering towards Trump, so it should be easy.

“Did anyone ever ask you to bribe or extort anyone at any time during your time in the White House?" House Intelligence Committee Ranking Member Devin Nunes, R-Calif., asked at one point in Tuesday's afternoon hearing.

Former National Security Council (NSC) aide Tim Morrison: "No."

Former U.S. Special Representative for Ukraine Kurt Volker: “No."

Later, Rep. Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y., covered similar ground in asking the witnesses about Trump's fateful July 25 call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky: "Mr. Morrison, you were on that call, and there was no quid pro quo, correct? No bribery? No extortion?"

"Correct," Morrison replied in response to each question.

"And, Ambassador Volker, I presume you got a readout of the call. ... Was there any reference to withholding aid? Any reference to bribery? Any reference to quid pro quo? Any reference to extortion?"

"No, there was not," Volker replied, again and again.


These are first hand witnesses.



posted on Nov, 21 2019 @ 08:40 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Looks like just about everyone knew what was going on as Sondland named just about all of the Trump's senior aides in his testimony.

The entire Trump Whitehouse is basically one giant criminal conspiracy at this point.

"Unusual, inappropriate, and improper"

Those words just keep on coming up, and there is nothing perfect about that nor the phone calls, that's a given at this point.

My bet is Rudy Giuliani is made to take the fall, because someone is going down.



posted on Nov, 21 2019 @ 08:45 AM
link   
As Sondland testified, a misleading Ukraine story spread among conservatives on social media

That's nothing compared to the spin liberals put on the hearings yesterday.

Conflicting testimony was a bombshell.




posted on Nov, 21 2019 @ 08:46 AM
link   
This clip of "mr. bombshell Sondland" really is the opposite of the OP title ..... The lazy who take MSM at their word are living in their own Bizarro World ..... Watching 3 minutes of REALITY is good for you


edit on 11212019 by MetalThunder because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2019 @ 08:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: andy06shake
And no credible defense from team Trump whatsoever.

His defense is simply that he did not do anything wrong.


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

Yes, there is a sham going on right now, but it is going so badly for the dems, that I am leaning more and more to the belief that Nancy will never put it to the floor for a vote because she thinks it won't pass. Submitting Articles of Impeachment to a general vote, resulting in a fail, would be the last nail in the coffin of the old democrat party.


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

I know - singing a tune is a great way to put it, but this Broadway show is a total flop.


If he's done nothing wrong whats he panicking for and trying to discredit nevermind intimidate witnesses on the stand?

Panic??? So... have you not been paying attention? These tweets of his - definitely not even close to reaching the bar of 'witness intimidation' - are normal, standard Trump. Nothing 'panicky' about them.



posted on Nov, 21 2019 @ 08:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: tanstaafl

I don't disagree, and it's a separate argument that could be made. We don't even have to get into it though because EVERY last witness has said there was none. So the fact quid-pro-quo is not even necessarily wrong doesn't matter.

It actually matters very much, for any and every future negotiation Trump, or any future President will be involved in.



posted on Nov, 21 2019 @ 09:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

Again:


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...



posted on Nov, 21 2019 @ 09:05 AM
link   
a reply to: tanstaafl

He's panicking.

And no matter how many time he screams "I want nothing" or there was "no quid pro quo" it will not change a thing.

Sondland acknowledged the Ukraine quid pro quo and implicated Trump, Pence, Pompeo and many others.

Those Tweets were designed to intimidate and discredit Yovanovitch, even when he was allegedly not watching the impeachment hearing.

Caught Orange handed and then some.

And it will all out in the end, just wait and see.



posted on Nov, 21 2019 @ 09:07 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04




All you need to do is post a quote from anyone involved in listening to the phone call and quote them saying there was wrongdoing.


Now you're moving the goal posts.

However, without rummaging through the internet, I can tell you that Lt Col Vidman and Jennifer Williams both listened in on the call and both said Trump's request was impropriate.



posted on Nov, 21 2019 @ 09:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: OccamsRazor04




All you need to do is post a quote from anyone involved in listening to the phone call and quote them saying there was wrongdoing.


Now you're moving the goal posts.

However, without rummaging through the internet, I can tell you that Lt Col Vidman and Jennifer Williams both listened in on the call and both said Trump's request was impropriate.

Vindman is a Trump hater and a Biden friend and Williams changed her testimony to say Zelensky is the one who brought up Burisma after initially saying Trump did.

Neither of them said what Trump did is illegal, neither of them said there was quid-pro-quo in the phone call. Vindman is also the guy who said he could not reach Morrison and that is why he did not express his concerns ... yet it is now proven he in fact gave Morrison his notes that day, making him a liar.

However, Vindman was caught in an apparent contradiction late in the day by Republican Ohio Rep. Brad Wenstrup. Vindman testified earlier in the day that he did not discuss his concerns about Trump's July phone call with Morrison, his superior, because he was unavailable.

But, under questioning from Wenstrup, Morrison confirmed that Vindman had given him edits of the transcript of the call, on the same day that Vindman testified Morrison was unreachable.


OOPS! This is the same guy who says he has no idea who the Whistleblower is ... but admits he talked to 2 people and named one and said he can't name the other. Well why not if he is not the WB? Clearly he named the other so it is not he can't name anyone, only that one person he can't name.



posted on Nov, 21 2019 @ 09:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Boadicea

Again:


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...


Ugh. At no time does Mulvaney claim a quid pro quo... hence the lack of such a quote. This is the reporter's interpretation of the exchange.

Mulvaney said Trump told him that he believed Ukraine was a "corrupt place" and that he didn't want to "send them a bunch of money." He also said the president was concerned that other European countries weren't doing their fair share to contribute to Ukraine's defense.

Mulvaney added: "Did he also mention to me in the past the corruption related to the DNC server? Absolutely. No question about that. But that's it. And that's why we held up the money."

ABC News' Jonathan Karl immediately followed up and asked Mulvaney to confirm that "the demand for an investigation into the Democrats was part of the reason that he ordered to withhold funding to Ukraine."

Mulvaney replied affirmatively, saying that "the look back to what happened in 2016 certainly was part of the thing that he was worried about in corruption with that nation."


Mulvaney is clearly explaining Trump's concerns about corruption in Ukraine, and that it was because of that corruption that foreign aid was withheld.

At no time does Mulvaney speak to any quid pro quo... no deal offered... no conditions placed upon receiving the funds. In fact, it seems that Mulvaney ONLY speaks to withholding the funds and why. Absolutely nothing about releasing the funds or the reasoning/conditions thereof.

If anything, this shows that Trump would not throw good money after bad, and waited for Zelensky to "do the right thing" all on his own, thus proving himself and his intentions to Trump.



posted on Nov, 21 2019 @ 09:22 AM
link   
a reply to: ErEhWoN

While the General Prosecutor confirmed that Zlochevsky has been the subject of 13 criminal investigations in the Ukraine that they decided to audit over a month ago, and confirmed that they suspect his embezzlement was much larger than they originally suspected, I don't recall him stating that the news of the indictment was false. While he didn't confirm it, he didn't deny it either, so where's your proof that the information is incorrect. You don't have it.



posted on Nov, 21 2019 @ 09:22 AM
link   
a reply to: andy06shake

Sondland specifically said no one ever told him anything to give him the impression of quid pro quo, he admitted he fabricated it in his own mind. Sondland's beliefs are not relevant if they are not grounded in facts. Sondland said he never thought Trump should be impeached, Sondland never at any time thought Trump did anything wrong.

“I never said the president of the United States should be impeached,” Sondland replied.


Next witness please.



posted on Nov, 21 2019 @ 09:25 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Like i said you must have been watching a different Sondland.

Next witness indeed.

Keep them coming.

Coz they are all singing a very similar tune.

They are even all in the same key.

edit on 21-11-2019 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2019 @ 09:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Like i said you must have been watching a different Sondland.

Next witness indeed.

Keep them coming.

Coz they are all singing a very similar tune.

They are even all in the same key.

I quoted him. Keep trying.



posted on Nov, 21 2019 @ 09:28 AM
link   
a reply to: andy06shake


Sondland acknowledged the Ukraine quid pro quo and implicated Trump, Pence, Pompeo and many others.


No. Sondland -- in his own words -- PRESUMED a quid pro quo. I have posted the link twice in this thread. Deny ignorance.


And no matter how many time he screams "I want nothing" or there was "no quid pro quo" it will not change a thing.


And no matter how many times Dems scream "quid pro quo" it will not make it true.



posted on Nov, 21 2019 @ 09:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

Well, Congress may disagree there.

Whos other words would you have had Sondland use aside from his own?

The phone calls make it true, as is plainly evident.

And no matter how many times republicans scream he did nothing wrong.

I think you may find that he did do plenty wrong, nevermind fail to follow proper procedure.

Sondlands testimony has been the most damming yet and then some.
edit on 21-11-2019 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2019 @ 09:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea




Mulvaney is clearly explaining Trump's concerns about corruption in Ukraine, and that it was because of that corruption that foreign aid was withheld.


"The corruption" that Trump is talking about is the debunked theory that Ukraine, not Russia, interfered in the 2016 election. That the Democrats had their own server hacked, and hired Crowdstrike to frame Russia, and hid the "server" in Ukraine.

From the transcript:

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.



posted on Nov, 21 2019 @ 09:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Like i said you must have been watching a different Sondland.

Next witness indeed.

Keep them coming.

Coz they are all singing a very similar tune.

They are even all in the same key.


Yep, sounds like OccamsRazor watched Sondland directly and you watched the talking points about Sondland from CNN.




top topics



 
16
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join