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.

 

John Solomon refutes Vindmans testimony his reporting was innaccurate

page: 12
56
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 27 2019 @ 07:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

I never said he staged anything.




posted on Nov, 27 2019 @ 11:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

But isn't that your whole point? Trump knew what he was accused of so he made a trail of plausible deniability?



posted on Nov, 28 2019 @ 12:56 AM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

NO



posted on Nov, 28 2019 @ 02:46 AM
link   
I had my suspicions that Trump was made aware of the whistleblower complaint that included quid pro quo before the call. I just now looked up if there has been anything on that.

Trump Briefed on Whistleblower Complaint

I was a little surprised to see some stories broke on it. So he was briefed in late August by Whitehouse counsel and a attorney with the Whitehouse security Counsel. Just a reminder that the phone call where he claimed there was no quid pro quo was on September 9th.

There are also reports that there is no Whitehouse record of the Sept 9th call. Maybe the president has some off book phone and the call did happen but if he does that also raises questions.


edit on 28-11-2019 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 28 2019 @ 11:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

So you're suggesting sondland is a perjurer?

Why don't you spell out your position so I don't have to keep guessing?



posted on Nov, 28 2019 @ 11:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

I already have spelled it out with links and excerpts.

Why should I do it again? Just go back and reread. Starting where I said the formal complaint was filed on Aug 12 and later backed it up.



posted on Nov, 29 2019 @ 09:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi



Why should I do it again?


Well because you didn't actually spell it out. You made a bunch of insinuations but then when pressed on them, you backed off.



posted on Nov, 29 2019 @ 10:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

What do you claim I backed off on?


Oh, and BTW it has come out that the claimed Sept 9th call never happened. Look it up. Search Sept 9th call.



posted on Nov, 30 2019 @ 09:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

First you said:



August 12 was when the formal complaint was filed. Trump saying there was no quid pro quo was almost a month later.

Who says that? I mean it was like he was coached.


So I asked:



But isn't that your whole point? Trump knew what he was accused of so he made a trail of plausible deniability?


You responded:



NO


That looks like a heavy backtrack to me, which is why I asked you to clarify.



Oh, and BTW it has come out that the claimed Sept 9th call never happened. Look it up. Search Sept 9th call.


I looked it up, I can't find a single article stating it didn't happen. There are articles raising doubts about it happening on the 9th though. Regardless, are you saying you think sondland is a perjurer? If so, doesn't that make the rest of what he said basically useless? Wasn't he the dems "strongest" witness?

Whether the call happened or not, we have the texts from sondland telling taylor "President trump has been crystal clear, no quid pro quo's of any kind" don't we?
edit on 30-11-2019 by Dfairlite because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2019 @ 10:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

Sondlands response to Taylor is what effectively destroys Grimpachis argument. The user is committing the same offense the Democrats pulled by resorting to supposition and hearsay.



posted on Nov, 30 2019 @ 10:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
Whether the call happened or not, we have the texts from sondland telling taylor "President trump has been crystal clear, no quid pro quo's of any kind" don't we?

But isn't Sondland just repeating what Trump said?

Is he committing perjury for stating what Trump said?
edit on 30-11-2019 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 1 2019 @ 01:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

Well, first off you claimed the Aug 12 complaint was a meeting with Schiff. No, that was when the formal whistleblower complaint was filled.

You asked me if Trump is setting up plausible deniability. No, just because Trump all of a sudden feels like spouting Latin it does not equal plausible deniability. Trump had been briefed about the WB complaint near the end of August by Whitehouse lawyers and staff. Sondland may be in trouble but then again he left himself a lot of room in his opening testimony to backtrack on things. We do know there is no record of a Whitehouse call with Sondland on sept 9. If you can't find a single article on the Sept 9 call by typing "sept 9 call" I question your... Just in case you are somehow impared here is a link. Sept 9 call



posted on Dec, 1 2019 @ 01:02 AM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

No, sondland testified that he had a phone call with president trump where he told him "I don't want anything. No quid pro quo. Nothing. Tell zelensky to do the right thing."

Testifying to a call that didn't happen (which isn't what is being contended really by the articles I've read) would be perjury.

The articles I read have said that it likely wasn't on the 9th as there is no record of a call between them on that day. Sondland should have evidence of this call, every cell phone known to man has a call log and can look this up. If it was on an official phone, there are logs of that too.

So one of the following must be true:
A) Sondland got the date wrong and can prove that the call happened a different date with logs
B) Sondland perjured himself and the call never happened
C) Sondland got the date right and the call was through "unofficial" channels

ETA:

There could also be a fourth option. He may have called someone else who was with the president. See, this is the problem with the speculation of the current articles that claim the call didn't happen. It didn't happen between sondland's phone they have on record and the official whitehouse lines. There are many other ways sondland could have spoken to trump that day.
edit on 1-12-2019 by Dfairlite because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 1 2019 @ 01:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

That isn't what you quoted in your post.



posted on Dec, 1 2019 @ 01:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi



If you can't find a single article on the Sept 9 call by typing "sept 9 call" I question your... Just in case you are somehow impared here is a link. Sept 9 call


Oh, I didn't say I couldn't find anything about it. Just that the articles (like the one you linked) don't say what you're pretending they do. These articles say there's no record of it on the 9th through official channels. They make a tenuous leap saying "sondland isn't known to have trump's personal number" which may or may not be true (him having the number).



Well, first off you claimed the Aug 12 complaint was a meeting with Schiff. No, that was when the formal whistleblower complaint was filled.


Yeah, we went over that.



You asked me if Trump is setting up plausible deniability. No, just because Trump all of a sudden feels like spouting Latin it does not equal plausible deniability.


Ok so now we're back to square one. WHAT DO YOU THINK IT PROVES THAT TRUMP KNEW ABOUT THE WHISTLE-BLOWER COMPLAINT AND TOLD TAYLOR NO QUID PRO QUO A WEEK OR TWO LATER????

That's the question I've been trying to get you to answer for a whole page now. You want to insinuate it's trump insulating himself but you backtrack from it when pressed. So answer the question, what does it prove to you?

You also conveniently ignored these questions (bolded):



Regardless, are you saying you think sondland is a perjurer? If so, doesn't that make the rest of what he said basically useless? Wasn't he the dems "strongest" witness?


I find it entertaining that you're attempting to impugn the integrity of your star witness. Especially because it's a moot point. You think it makes trump's case weak but it doesn't. We have the texts from sondland to taylor right here.



...The President has been crystal clear no quid pro quo's of any kind. The President is trying to evaluate whether ukraine is truly going to adopt the transparency and reforms that president zelensky promised during his campaign...


There is no question that exists. So all the phone call not existing proves is that sondland lied under oath, which discredits the rest of his testimony which the left and dems are relying on for the basis of their impeachment.



posted on Dec, 1 2019 @ 01:22 AM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

I think you're probably confused about the context. Unlike grimpachi, I'm happy to clear it up. Which part specifically do you think is contradictory?



posted on Dec, 1 2019 @ 01:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite
Maybe I am confused. I was just going on what your post said and then you added more quotes.

You then quoted:"sondland testified that he had a phone call with president trump where he told him"

Which was what I pointed out, he was just repeating what Trump told him.

Is that perjury?

edit on 1-12-2019 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 1 2019 @ 01:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
The articles I read have said that it likely wasn't on the 9th as there is no record of a call between them on that day.


Grimpachi said:"Oh, and BTW it has come out that the claimed Sept 9th call never happened."


There are also reports that there is no Whitehouse record of the Sept 9th call.


What is your argument?



posted on Dec, 1 2019 @ 01:43 AM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

The phone call was allegedly between sondland and trump. So I guess what I'm saying is that if the call happened none of it is perjury. If it didn't, it is. If it happened a little different, then it could be depending on how strict you want to be with perjury rules.



posted on Dec, 1 2019 @ 01:44 AM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

That there are many other ways sondland can talk to trump other than through the official channels.




top topics



 
56
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join