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: 8
16
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 21 2019 @ 10:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: fringeofthefringe
You asked:
How did Ukraine meddle in the 2016 election?
I gave a straight forward answer, do you agree with my response.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: fringeofthefringe
I'll take a stab at this one;
Publishing negative information about Paul Manifort, let's go with this one for starters.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Boadicea

How did Ukraine meddle in the 2016 election?

A quick synopsis of what you mean when you say that ... I really do want to understand where you guys are coming from.


President Trump said at the time that Paul Manafort wasn't important to his campaign, that he had only been there a couple of months and that he really hadn't done anything, remember?

I think we can trust the President on that, right?


According to President Trump, Manafort was not important to his campaign.

Is it meddling if it has no effect?




posted on Nov, 21 2019 @ 10:19 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

While Manafort himself wasn't that important in helping Trump's campaign, it certainly helped to hurt it based on crap that happened long before Trump even knew who Manafort was. Some people on here, as well as the media, still use Manafort as an excuse to cry Russian interference or lay blame on Trump.



posted on Nov, 21 2019 @ 10:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

I believe what Sondland said was that he was told by Rudy that they wanted transparent investigations announced before Trump would do a White House meeting. So what?

Why should anyone be against a transparent investigation? Why does Trump have to meet Zelensky?

Can you quote me Sondland saying the arms were contingent on it and who told him that?

Sondland said the opposite of what you are saying.

“No one on this planet told you that Donald Trump was tying this aid to the investigation? Yes or no?” Turner asked.

“Yes,” Sondland answered.


Explicit testimony saying not Rude, not Trump, no one ever tied aid to investigations that he is aware of.



posted on Nov, 21 2019 @ 10:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66


Why is it true again?

This is the same information released yesterday that has pretty much been discredited.


Once again, you're wrong on that. The General Prosecutor may not have confirmed the indictment against the owner of Burisma, but he certainly didn't deny it either. If you find a direct denial from him on that, be sure to share, because so far it hasn't happened. The only thing being discredited is crappy reporting, as usual.



posted on Nov, 21 2019 @ 10:21 AM
link   
Testimony of Ambassador Sondland, et. al.



Fourth, as I testified previously, Mr. Giuliani’s requests were a quid pro quo for arranging a White House visit for President Zelensky. Mr. Giuliani demanded that Ukraine make a public statement announcing the investigations of the 2016 election, DNC server and Burisma. Mr. Giuliani was expressing the desires of the President of the United States and we knew these investigations were important to the president.


Source



posted on Nov, 21 2019 @ 10:21 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04



You keep dodging the question.
IF there was in fact corruption involving Burisma, if Biden did stop investigations, should Ukraine not investigate it?


I don't answer hypothetical gish gallops.
edit on 21-11-2019 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2019 @ 10:22 AM
link   
Gryphon66 wrote:
According to President Trump, Manafort was not important to his campaign.

Is it meddling if it has no effect?


The press went on, it was an issue Trump had to deal with. Manafort resigned.
Trump and his team did a great job dealing with it, to say it had no affect is not accurate.
To this day he is also referenced by the MSM, I could go on but you are not being fair with this discussion if your response is it had no impact.
It did and Trump overcame it.
edit on 21-11-2019 by fringeofthefringe because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2019 @ 10:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: fringeofthefringe
You asked:
How did Ukraine meddle in the 2016 election?
I gave a straight forward answer, do you agree with my response.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: fringeofthefringe
I'll take a stab at this one;
Publishing negative information about Paul Manifort, let's go with this one for starters.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Boadicea

How did Ukraine meddle in the 2016 election?

A quick synopsis of what you mean when you say that ... I really do want to understand where you guys are coming from.


President Trump said at the time that Paul Manafort wasn't important to his campaign, that he had only been there a couple of months and that he really hadn't done anything, remember?

I think we can trust the President on that, right?


According to President Trump, Manafort was not important to his campaign.

Is it meddling if it has no effect?

Are you saying there were no stories by the media painting Trump in a bad light over it? Or are you saying not one person in the world was influenced by those stories?



posted on Nov, 21 2019 @ 10:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: Deetermined
a reply to: Gryphon66

While Manafort himself wasn't that important in helping Trump's campaign, it certainly helped to hurt it based on crap that happened long before Trump even knew who Manafort was. Some people on here, as well as the media, still use Manafort as an excuse to cry Russian interference or lay blame on Trump.


... but it didn't hurt the Trump Campaign at the time, it has been used after Trump became President, correct?



posted on Nov, 21 2019 @ 10:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: OccamsRazor04



You keep dodging the question.
IF there was in fact corruption involving Burisma, if Biden did stop investigations, should Ukraine not investigate it?


I don't answer hypothetical gish gallops.

It's all hypothetical IF trump did anything to be impeached over. Since you are not interested in any investigation about if's we need to be in agreement to shut this one down. Unless you are a hypocrite.



posted on Nov, 21 2019 @ 10:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: fringeofthefringe
You asked:
How did Ukraine meddle in the 2016 election?
I gave a straight forward answer, do you agree with my response.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: fringeofthefringe
I'll take a stab at this one;
Publishing negative information about Paul Manifort, let's go with this one for starters.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Boadicea

How did Ukraine meddle in the 2016 election?

A quick synopsis of what you mean when you say that ... I really do want to understand where you guys are coming from.


President Trump said at the time that Paul Manafort wasn't important to his campaign, that he had only been there a couple of months and that he really hadn't done anything, remember?

I think we can trust the President on that, right?


According to President Trump, Manafort was not important to his campaign.

Is it meddling if it has no effect?

Are you saying there were no stories by the media painting Trump in a bad light over it? Or are you saying not one person in the world was influenced by those stories?


No, I said Candidate Trump was very clear that Manafort was not a loss to him or to his campaign.

You can second-guess the President if you'd like. I have no way to know or read the minds of people across the world to answer your question.



posted on Nov, 21 2019 @ 10:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

That's only because you have no defense for Biden.



posted on Nov, 21 2019 @ 10:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Deetermined
a reply to: Gryphon66

While Manafort himself wasn't that important in helping Trump's campaign, it certainly helped to hurt it based on crap that happened long before Trump even knew who Manafort was. Some people on here, as well as the media, still use Manafort as an excuse to cry Russian interference or lay blame on Trump.


... but it didn't hurt the Trump Campaign at the time, it has been used after Trump became President, correct?

Can you prove those stories did not hurt Trump at the time?



posted on Nov, 21 2019 @ 10:25 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I quoted Sondland's testimony above.



posted on Nov, 21 2019 @ 10:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: fringeofthefringe
You asked:
How did Ukraine meddle in the 2016 election?
I gave a straight forward answer, do you agree with my response.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: fringeofthefringe
I'll take a stab at this one;
Publishing negative information about Paul Manifort, let's go with this one for starters.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Boadicea

How did Ukraine meddle in the 2016 election?

A quick synopsis of what you mean when you say that ... I really do want to understand where you guys are coming from.


President Trump said at the time that Paul Manafort wasn't important to his campaign, that he had only been there a couple of months and that he really hadn't done anything, remember?

I think we can trust the President on that, right?


According to President Trump, Manafort was not important to his campaign.

Is it meddling if it has no effect?

Are you saying there were no stories by the media painting Trump in a bad light over it? Or are you saying not one person in the world was influenced by those stories?


No, I said Candidate Trump was very clear that Manafort was not a loss to him or to his campaign.

You can second-guess the President if you'd like. I have no way to know or read the minds of people across the world to answer your question.

The interference was not about Manafort, it was about creating negative press towards Trump. It succeeded in that. Like I said, I am not saying it was illegal for them to have done so, but it certainly happened.



posted on Nov, 21 2019 @ 10:26 AM
link   
Why are you all talking about this?

There's an entire morning of new crap to sift through.



posted on Nov, 21 2019 @ 10:26 AM
link   
It appeared to not hurt Trump because he kept fighting through it and drowned out the garbage from the media and others.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Deetermined
a reply to: Gryphon66

While Manafort himself wasn't that important in helping Trump's campaign, it certainly helped to hurt it based on crap that happened long before Trump even knew who Manafort was. Some people on here, as well as the media, still use Manafort as an excuse to cry Russian interference or lay blame on Trump.


... but it didn't hurt the Trump Campaign at the time, it has been used after Trump became President, correct?

Can you prove those stories did not hurt Trump at the time?



posted on Nov, 21 2019 @ 10:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Also, from Fiona Hill's testimony this morning.


Hill said Bolton advised her to contact Eisenberg after a July 10 meeting with senior Ukrainian officials in which Sondland brought up the issue of investigations, The Wall Street Journal reported.

Bolton told her he wasn't part of "whatever drug deal Sondland and Mulvaney are cooking up,"



posted on Nov, 21 2019 @ 10:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66


... but it didn't hurt the Trump Campaign at the time, it has been used after Trump became President, correct?


Use some common sense. UKrainians released Manafort's 2012 ledgers in August 2016 and Ukraine PROSECUTED these people for interference. You think they would have imprisoned them for election interference if it was released long after the election was over?



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



posted on Nov, 21 2019 @ 10:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I quoted Sondland's testimony above.

Which was not about aid, it was about a visit to the White House. When it comes to aid, Sondland said the opposite of what you said. Your claim was the aid was to it, I am looking for Sondland saying that and who made that clear to him .... because I just quoted him saying it was not tied.

This was your claim.

Sondland's testimony was verbatim that a requirement existed as negotiated by Guiliani that Presidential phone calls, trips to Washingon, and the sale of Javelins/military aid, were contingent on the Ukrainians opening investigations into the Bidens and the "Crowdstrike server" [sic].

Javelins and aid tied to it ...

This is your quote.

Fourth, as I testified previously, Mr. Giuliani’s requests were a quid pro quo for arranging a White House visit for President Zelensky.


That is a WH visit, not javelins.

This is Sondland's testimony concerning those javelins.

“No one on this planet told you that Donald Trump was tying this aid to the investigation? Yes or no?” Turner asked.

“Yes,” Sondland answered.


It seems to me you are mixing his testimony. Maybe I am wrong. Can you quote him talking about the AID being tied to investigations and who told him that.







 
16
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join