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

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: ErEhWoN

Twitter is "on it"!

You may want to look at Fiddler Forest's replies to his post...

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Slinki

When the sources are named you can search the name and see what is coming up. It makes seeing whether it is true or not much easier.

Way to dodge the serious question.
So what you're saying is basically you believe it's fake news if it's not coming from a source that you believe is telling the right of it?

Got it.

originally posted by: Slinki

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Slinki

When the sources are named you can search the name and see what is coming up. It makes seeing whether it is true or not much easier.

Way to dodge the serious question.
So what you're saying is basically you believe it's fake news if it's not coming from a source that you believe is telling the right of it?

Got it.

I didn't dodge anything. I have no idea what you are talking about. And what source do you think I find trustworthy? You made the comment so what did you mean?

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I have no opinion as to what source you find credible. What I'm saying I think, is obvious. Who CAN you trust to tell you the truth? Who DO you trust to tell you the truth? Many people have differing opinions and answers to that question. Each side calls the other side "Fake News". So, who do you believe? I think the Right cries "Fake News" far more than the left, but that doesn't mean that I agree. The Left seems to make mountains out of mole hills, but that doesn't mean they're correct in their assessment of the situation.
It was a serious question that I asked assuming something I should not have, and I got snotty.
I apologize.

a reply to: RalagaNarHallas

Every single person on this thread needs to read this Time article.

It shows, the zelensky camp, which all dems and their witnesses admit is is great and fighting corruption.

This article quotes their prosecutor saying they desperately want to investigate Zelensky and Burisma, but they are feeling pressured to treat it with kid gloves because of the dems impeachment effort.

Did you get that?

The government of Ukraine cant fight or investigate corruption properly because of the dems and their impeachment efforts.

UNBELIEVABLE!!!

a reply to: ErEhWoN

a reply to: Grambler

Schiff wants the investigation stopped because it might influence the 2020 election.

a reply to: Slinki

I don't trust any of them. I want a story to name their source. I want to be able to evaluate myself who is saying what and what their motives may be. I want to look at several different stories about that person.

For instance yesterday CNN did their "what you need to know about today's testimony" and completely left out the fact 2 witnesses said there was no quid-pro-quo. But when I googled the 2 witnesses and got more info about their testimony I found out what they said.

They all put a slant on their news, their is no news, there is opinion masquerading as fact.

FOX has by far the largest range of "truth", but to act like they are not propaganda would be a lie, they are.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

You must be watching a different impeachment hearing from me.

And how many witnesses have the White House attempted to block from speaking thus far?

It will all come out in the end, people like Trump generally get there comeuppance, most of the time by there own hand.

Anyhoo, im sure Trump will keep you all up to date with his crazy Tweets about hearings that he is not even watching.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Slinki

I want a story to name their source. I want to be able to evaluate myself who is saying what and what their motives may be. I want to look at several different stories about that person.

Thank you so much for clarifying that for me. I see your original comment in a different light and I needed that.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Sondland did recall that at one point he asked Trump what he wants from Ukraine.

"He just said, 'I want nothing, I want nothing, I want no quid pro quo,'" Sondland recalled.

Why would anyone need to take the focus off that?

That was AFTER the whistleblower complaint. When they knew they were being watched.

Sondland testified he worked with Giuliani to pressure Ukraine ‘at the express direction of the president.’

Mr. Sondland told the committee that he and other advisers to Mr. Trump pressured Ukraine to investigate Democrats “because the president directed us to do so.”

Mr. Sondland said that he, Energy Secretary Rick Perry and Kurt D. Volker, the special envoy for Ukraine, were reluctant to work with Rudolph W. Giuliani, the president’s personal attorney, on the pressure campaign and agreed only at Mr. Trump’s insistence.

“Secretary Perry, Ambassador Volker and I worked with Mr. Rudy Giuliani on Ukraine matters at the express direction of the president of the United States,” Mr. Sondland told the committee. “We did not want to work with Mr. Giuliani. Simply put, we were playing the hand we were dealt.” With no alternative, he said, “we followed the president’s orders.”

Mr. Sondland confirmed what has already been known, that there was a clear “quid pro quo” linking a coveted White House meeting for Ukraine’s president to the investigations Mr. Trump wanted. And he said he was concerned about “a potential quid pro quo” linking $391 million in security aid that Mr. Trump suspended to the investigations he desired.

‘Everyone was in the loop,’ Sondland said, including Pence, Pompeo, Mulvaney and others.

Mr. Sondland testified that he told Vice President Mike Pence in late August that he feared the military aid withheld from Ukraine was tied to the investigations Mr. Trump sought and that he kept Secretary of State Mike Pompeo apprised of his efforts to pressure Ukraine.

Why indeed.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

You must be watching a different impeachment hearing from me.

And how many witnesses have the White House attempted to block from speaking thus far?

It will all come out in the end, people like Trump generally get there comeuppance, most of the time by there own hand.

Anyhoo, im sure Trump will keep you all up to date with his crazy Tweets about hearings that he is not even watching.

And how many testimonies have not been released by Schiff yet, except cherry-picked sound bites he leaks to the press to keep up his narrative?

As for it all coming out in the end, I do hope that this goes to the Senate so we can get an actual look at actual facts.

I'm looking forward to Schiff's testimony, for instance.

a reply to: ErEhWoN

Sondland testified that trump, nor any human being ever told him there was a wuid pro quo for the aid.

Sondland admitted he "presumed" there was a quid pro quo.

He admits trump told him the opposite, that he didnt want a quid pro quo.

He admits trump told him the opposite, that he didnt want a quid pro quo.

a reply to: Grambler

Yeah, AFTER the whistle blower complaint came out.
Of course he would say that, they knew they were being watched then.

originally posted by: ErEhWoN

He admits trump told him the opposite, that he didnt want a quid pro quo.

a reply to: Grambler

Yeah, AFTER the whistle blower complaint came out.
Of course he would say that, they knew they were being watched then.

Not only watching him... Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) was actively boycotting his wife's real estate business and hotels.

Isn't that witness intimidation?

“No one who cares about America should do any business or stay at any of Gordon Sondland’s hotels until he fulfills his duty as a citizen to testify & turn over all relevant documents to the House. Here’s a list of his hotels,” Blumenauer tweeted. “Share if you agree!”

Which is OK to do if you are a Democrat, amIright?

a reply to: Lumenari

Let's hear what the all have to say would be my thinking on the matter.

I'm not hearing any kind of credible defense from Trumps side all the same.

Other than claiming he's done nothing wrong, which the witnesses certainly don't seem to agree to.
.

a reply to: Lumenari
Uh, most Dems I know don't want to elect QuidProJO, he's just as bad as Trump. Marijuana is a gateway drug, give me a break. I'm a certified independant and I sure the hell don't wan't creepy Joe back in the White House.

Trump isn't trying to expose a crime, he tried to use funds approved by congress and the pentagon to have a foreign govt "do him a favor".

a reply to: ErEhWoN

Marijuana is indeed a gateway drug.

Away from other far more dangerous narcotics that is.

Alcohol and Tobacco, now those are gateway drugs.

As for it all coming out in the end, I do hope that this goes to the Senate so we can get an actual look at actual facts.

a reply to: Lumenari

This is all sworn testimony. It's not going to change if it goes to the Senate.

This ain't the Trump administration, there will be no 'alternative facts'.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Lumenari

Let's hear what the all have to say would be my thinking on the matter.

I'm not hearing any kind of credible defense from Trumps side all the same.

Other than claiming he's done nothing wrong, which the witnesses certainly don't seem to agree to.
.

Define witnesses.

Do you mean people who actually heard the conversation?

Because so far we really don't have many of those.

Trump is essentially getting impeached because people he is in charge of didn't like his style of foreign policy and they have opinions about that.

This isn't going to go well for the Democratic party.

And they deserve every single bit of misery that is coming to them.

Can't actually win a Presidential election with 27% of the country's active voters after all.