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.
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?
“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.
Why is it true again?
This is the same information released yesterday that has pretty much been discredited.
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.
You keep dodging the question.
IF there was in fact corruption involving Burisma, if Biden did stop investigations, should Ukraine not investigate it?
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?
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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?
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,"
... but it didn't hurt the Trump Campaign at the time, it has been used after Trump became President, correct?
originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: OccamsRazor04
I quoted Sondland's testimony above.
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].
Fourth, as I testified previously, Mr. Giuliani’s requests were a quid pro quo for arranging a White House visit for President Zelensky.
“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.