Quantcast
  • Two more days to enter the Secret Santa!

    Entries must be in by midnight on November 29th. We're kicking off the 2024 Secret Santa! Exchange gifts with other monkeys - from beer and snacks, to bike gear, to custom machined holiday decorations and tools by our more talented members, there's something for everyone.

    Click here for details and to learn how to participate.

Pesqueeb

bicycle in airplane hangar
Feb 2, 2007
41,910
19,236
Riding the baggage carousel.
:shocked:

"Sondland excerpts here, Volker here.
Relevant new material from these transcripts in bold
Big new revelations:
  • Sondland has added four new pages of addenda to his testimony, in which he acknowledges directly delivering the extortion threat to Ukraine that military aid would likely be withheld unless and until they announced the investigations demanded by Trump.
  • Zelenskiy discussed the suspension of aid directly with Mike Pence.
I now do recall a conversation on September 1, 2019, in Warsaw with [Ukrainian official] Mr. Yermak. This brief pull-aside conversation followed the larger meeting involving Vice President Pence and President Zelensky, in which President Zelensky had raised the issue of the suspension of US aid to Ukraine directly with VP Pence. After that large meeting, I now recall speaking individually with Mr. Yermak, where I said that resumption of US aid would likely not occur until Ukraine provided the public anti-corruption statement that we had been discussing for many weeks.
That "anti-corruption statement" was described in Kurt Volker's text to Sondland from August 13, and is unambiguously about Biden:
[8/13/19, 10:26:44 AM] Kurt Volker: Special attention should be paid to the problem of interference in the political processes of the United States especially with the alleged involvement of some Ukrainian politicians. I want to declare that this is unacceptable. We intend to initiate and complete a transparent and unbiased investigation of all available facts and episodes, including those involving Burisma and the 2016 U.S. elections
[8/13/19, 10:27:20 AM] Gordon Sondland: Perfect. Lets send to Andrey after our call
  • There are 65 pages of new text messages between Rudy, Volker, Sondland and Ukrainian officials. These include Volker coaching Ukraine's defense minister ('Andrey' above) on how to deliver the public statement on September 2nd, just days after Sondland delivered the extortion threat in person.
  • Sondland admits to speaking with Rick Perry (another of the "3 amigos" coordinating the extortion) multiple times before his testimony to "refresh his memory" on events. The day before Sondland testified, Perry gave an interview to WSJ. This appears to be an effort to coordinate testimony.
Brief overview of the single most important period (late August to September 13th)
  • August 30th: Sondland tells Ukraine military aid will likely be with-held until they announce investigations demanded by Trump.
  • September 1st: Sondland confirms to US Ambassador to Ukraine Taylor that 'everything', including military aid is dependent on Zelenskiy announcing investigations into Biden and the Ukraine server conspiracy.
  • September 9th: Taylor reconfirms the demand with Sondland. Congress learns of the Whistleblower complaint.
  • September 10th: Adam Schiff writes to the ICIG to demand the Whistleblower complaint.
  • September 11th: Trump releases the military aid.
  • September 12th-13th: Taylor learns that Zelenskiy had agreed to make the public statement Trump demanded on CNN, but that it is now canceled.
Detailed timeline with communications
  • Mid August - Volker and Sondland draft a public statement to be made by Ukraine announcing investigations into the Bidens and the 2016 elections.
[8/13/19, 10:26:44 AM] Kurt Volker: Special attention should be paid to the problem of interference in the political processes of the United States especially with the alleged involvement of some Ukrainian politicians. I want to declare that this is unacceptable. We intend to initiate and complete a transparent and unbiased investigation of all available facts and episodes, including those involving Burisma and the 2016 U.S. elections, which in turn will prevent the recurrence of this problem in the future.
[8/13/19, 10:27:20 AM] Gordon Sondland: Perfect. Lets send to Andrey after our call
  • Late August: Sondland told Republican Senator Ron Johnson explicitly that Ukrainian aid was dependent upon investigations desired by Trump.
  • August 30th: In revised testimony (see Page 10), Sondland now admits that he personally informed Ukraine that they were being extorted into announcing investigations:
Ambassador Sondland acknowledged telling one of President Zelensky’s advisors in Warsaw that “resumption of U.S. aid would likely not occur until Ukraine provided the public anti-corruption statement that we had been discussing for many weeks.”
  • September 1: Sondland had this exchange with Ukrainian ambassador Bill Taylor, according to text messages released by Ukraine envoy Kurt Volker:
[9/1/19, 12:08:57 PM] Bill Taylor: Are we now saying that security assistance and WH meeting are conditioned on investigations?
[9/1/19, 12:42:29 PM] Gordon Sondland: Call me
Sondland, US ambassador to the European Union, told Taylor he’d also made a mistake earlier by telling the Ukrainian officials that a White House meeting with Zelensky “was dependent on a public announcement of the investigations.”
"In fact, Ambassador Sondland said ‘everything’ was dependent on such an announcement, including security assistance,” Taylor testified.
  • September 2: Ukraine has agreed to make a public statement, and Kurt Volker coaches Ukraine's defense minister on how to deliver it, as confirmed in text messages released by Volker.
  • September 9: Taylor presses the point:
[9/9/19, 12:47:11 AM] Bill Taylor: As I said on the phone, I think it’s crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign.
Sondland's testimony on the ensuing 4.5 hour gap in his texts with Taylor:
"On September 9, 2019, Acting Charge de Affairs/Ambassador William Taylor raised concerns about the possibility that Ukrainians could perceive a linkage between U.S. security assistance and the President’s 2020 reelection campaign."..."Taking the issue seriously, and given the many versions of speculation that had been circulating about the security aid, I called President Trump directly. I asked him one open-ended question: What do you want from Ukraine? And as I recaIl, he was in a very bad mood. It was a very quick conversation. He said: I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo. I want Zelensky to do the right thing. And I said: What does that mean? And he said: I want him to do what he ran on. And that was the end of the conversation. I wouldn't say he hung up me, but it was almost like he hung up on me.""
 

Pesqueeb

bicycle in airplane hangar
Feb 2, 2007
41,910
19,236
Riding the baggage carousel.
Part 2

"And his next text with Taylor:
[9/9/19, 5:19:35 AM] Gordon Sondland: Bill, I believe you are incorrect about President Trump’s intentions. 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 I suggest we stop the back and forth by text.
  • However, on the phone, in fumbling around for any description that would not involve the literal words "quid pro quo", Sondland describes as crass a quid pro quo as could be imagined:
“Ambassador Sondland tried to explain to me that President Trump is a businessman. When a businessman is about to sign a check to someone who owes him something, he said, the businessman asks that person to pay up before signing the check.”
Later that same day, the HPSCI is given notice of a Whistleblower Complaint regarding Trump's July 25th call with Zelenskiy.


"https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/ds3yeb/megathread_house_impeachment_committee_releases/f6my1tg/
 

Brian HCM#1

Don’t feed the troll
Sep 7, 2001
32,241
382
Bay Area, California
Part 2

"And his next text with Taylor:

  • However, on the phone, in fumbling around for any description that would not involve the literal words "quid pro quo", Sondland describes as crass a quid pro quo as could be imagined:

Later that same day, the HPSCI is given notice of a Whistleblower Complaint regarding Trump's July 25th call with Zelenskiy.


"https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/ds3yeb/megathread_house_impeachment_committee_releases/f6my1tg/
 

Westy

the teste
Nov 22, 2002
56,061
22,090
Sleazattle
Part 2

"And his next text with Taylor:

  • However, on the phone, in fumbling around for any description that would not involve the literal words "quid pro quo", Sondland describes as crass a quid pro quo as could be imagined:

Later that same day, the HPSCI is given notice of a Whistleblower Complaint regarding Trump's July 25th call with Zelenskiy.


"https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/ds3yeb/megathread_house_impeachment_committee_releases/f6my1tg/

This is totally unfair how Democrats are using facts and law!!!
 

Westy

the teste
Nov 22, 2002
56,061
22,090
Sleazattle
Once the police have been called to a crime scene, does it matter who called the police?
Attempting to claim the whistleblower was politically motivated serves to provide an excuse to Trump's base as they don't really have any other defense. Besmirching his name also serves to scare any other potential whistleblowers out there, and I am going to guess there are a whole lot of them.

At this point who the whistleblower is really serves no purpose as there is now plenty of first person evidence.
 

stoney

Part of the unwashed, middle-American horde
Jul 26, 2006
22,005
7,895
Colorado
Attempting to claim the whistleblower was politically motivated serves to provide an excuse to Trump's base as they don't really have any other defense. Besmirching his name also serves to scare any other potential whistleblowers out there, and I am going to guess there are a whole lot of them.

At this point who the whistleblower is really serves no purpose as there is now plenty of first person evidence.
Exactly the point.
 

Pesqueeb

bicycle in airplane hangar
Feb 2, 2007
41,910
19,236
Riding the baggage carousel.
This is totally unfair how Democrats are using facts and law!!!
And the literal transcripts and quotes from Trumps own appointees! DERP STATE!

By the end of the week all of these testifying, best people, Trump appointees will be angry democrats, just wait..






Reminder: Sondland paid 1 million dollars to be in this mess. :rofl: :rofl:
 

Pesqueeb

bicycle in airplane hangar
Feb 2, 2007
41,910
19,236
Riding the baggage carousel.
WhY dOn'T tHE dEmOCrAts wAnT TraNSpEraNcY?!?!?



It's almost like they aren't really acting in good faith.........
Fucking traitors.
 

Brian HCM#1

Don’t feed the troll
Sep 7, 2001
32,241
382
Bay Area, California
What does it matter who the whistleblower is if their complaint exposes serious criminal acts?
Because the whistleblower had second hand information. That person did not personally hear the phone call, but was told about it by someone else. So yes, its important to find out who this person is and testify in public. I'm fine with protecting that persons identity, but he/she should be able to testify. From the WH transcript, there is no mention of Quid pro Quo. All they are getting from the people testifying is, "this is the way I interpreted that phone call". Sorry, but you can't impeach a president on interpretation, it must be either Yes or No, he did or he didn't. Again, at the end of the day, the transcript says nothing about it.
 

jonKranked

Detective Dookie
Nov 10, 2005
88,941
27,128
media blackout
Because the whistleblower had second hand information
and as a result of that whistleblower, we now have those firsthand accounts.

From the WH transcript, there is no mention of Quid pro Quo.
you mean the transcript which was questionable in the first place, and has now been revealed to have 3 critical omissions? those omissions, with information from one of the firsthand accounts, do confirm the bribery.

oh and trump has now essentially admitted to the quid pro quo.
 

Brian HCM#1

Don’t feed the troll
Sep 7, 2001
32,241
382
Bay Area, California
Once the police have been called to a crime scene, does it matter who called the police?
Nope, it doesn't matter. However its fair that the police try to get to the bottom of the crime and that person should be made available to talk to the suspects defense attorney. Agreed? My point is, if you're willing to go to this point and you feel the info you have is 100% fact, why not share it with the other side. That person can be hidden behind a screen and voice change, to protect their identity, but at lest give the other side a chance to ask their questions.

Mark, if you felt someone was falsely accusing you of something wouldn't you directly want to hear from that person to defend yourself? Or, well the person totally misinterpreted what I did, so I guess I'm guilty all based on interpretation, not fact. I'm sure if you felt you're innocent, you'd fight it tooth & nail.
 

stoney

Part of the unwashed, middle-American horde
Jul 26, 2006
22,005
7,895
Colorado
Nope, it doesn't matter. However its fair that the police try to get to the bottom of the crime and that person should be made available to talk to the suspects defense attorney. Agreed? My point is, if you're willing to go to this point and you feel the info you have is 100% fact, why not share it with the other side. That person can be hidden behind a screen and voice change, to protect their identity, but at lest give the other side a chance to ask their questions.

Mark, if you felt someone was falsely accusing you of something wouldn't you directly want to hear from that person to defend yourself? Or, well the person totally misinterpreted what I did, so I guess I'm guilty all based on interpretation, not fact. I'm sure if you felt you're innocent, you'd fight it tooth & nail.
Fine accuse me second hand. But if that starts a snowball of first hand reports and evidence, the second hand doesn't matter a damned bit anymore; it was just the trigger that started the slide. If the only evidence was a second hand accusation, then yes, I understand the demand to find the accuser. However, there are now mountains of first hand, under oath evidence, by Trump's appointee's supporting the whistlerblower's statements. That person no longer matters. /conversation.
 

jonKranked

Detective Dookie
Nov 10, 2005
88,941
27,128
media blackout
Mark, if you felt someone was falsely accusing you of something wouldn't you directly want to hear from that person to defend yourself?
if this were criminal proceedings, sure. impeachment isn't a criminal proceeding, so the 6th amendment is generally considered not to apply.

plus the fact that 17 CFR § 240.21F-2 provides federal protection to whistleblowers against retaliation.
 

Brian HCM#1

Don’t feed the troll
Sep 7, 2001
32,241
382
Bay Area, California
and as a result of that whistleblower, we now have those firsthand accounts.



you mean the transcript which was questionable in the first place, and has now been revealed to have 3 critical omissions? those omissions, with information from one of the firsthand accounts, do confirm the bribery.

oh and trump has now essentially admitted to the quid pro quo.
Trump said it himself, he was going to hold back money to the Ukraine as he wanted to confirm there was no political corruption like in the past, since they had a new President. But nothing to do with quid pro quo. Anyways, Schiff would not let the right cross examine the people testifying, he blocked everyone they asked. That's why the right been going after Pelosi to make this hearings public. Nixon & Clinton were public, both sides were allowed to ask & answer questions fairly. Schiff is running the show and not allowing any of it. End of the day, Trump should be able to defend himself, the left is not allowing it. Why? IMO they have no credible evidence and the left is going to drag this out until next years elections to help defeat Trump because they no they don't have a strong enough candidate to do so.
 

rideit

Bob the Builder
Aug 24, 2004
24,758
12,525
In the cleavage of the Tetons
Trump said it himself, he was going to hold back money to the Ukraine as he wanted to confirm there was no political corruption like in the past, since they had a new President. But nothing to do with quid pro quo.
If you actually believe that pile of horseshit, you are now either:
Naïve
Or
Obtuse

The third may or may not still apply

To claim that Trump...TRUMP! of all the corrupt people, cares a whit about corruption is absurd.
And you know it.
 
Last edited:

jonKranked

Detective Dookie
Nov 10, 2005
88,941
27,128
media blackout
Trump said it himself, he was going to hold back money to the Ukraine as he wanted to confirm there was no political corruption like in the past, since they had a new President.
.....and to investigate Biden. as has now been corroborated with firsthand accounts.

and trump admitted to it.

But nothing to do with quid pro quo.
that is the ***DEFINITION*** of a quid pro quo.

Anyways, Schiff would not let the right cross examine the people testifying, he blocked everyone they asked.
it's come to light that many of the GOP members who are permitted to attend the testimony simply aren't going.

That's why the right been going after Pelosi to make this hearings public. Nixon & Clinton were public, both sides were allowed to ask & answer questions fairly. Schiff is running the show and not allowing any of it.
....except that last week the house voted to approve the investigation and thus make it public. which ironically, despite the GOP screaming for this to happen, every single republican member of the house voted **AGAINST** it

End of the day, Trump should be able to defend himself, the left is not allowing it.
trump has been on twitter "defending" himself by admitting he did it.

IMO they have no credible evidence
they have numerous firsthand accounts now. plus trump has admitted it.

left is going to drag this out until next years elections to help defeat Trump because they no they don't have a strong enough candidate to do so.
all credible polls show trump losing to all 3 of the leading democratic candidates.
 

velocipedist

Lubrication Sensei
Jul 11, 2006
560
702
Rainbow City Alabama
The issue here is that an inquiry is equivalent to a grand jury, a procedure that does not confer the robust rights that the actual trial in the Senate
will give.

Both Watergate and Whitewater/Lewinsky had investigations that occured prior to voting on articles of impeachment that in our current situation with AG Barr declining to investigate.

Unfortunately for Trump the constitutional basis for impeachment is solid and rules for an impeachment inquiry are under the purview and authority if the House.

Trump is blatant in his bad acts, and it is not a left priority to impeachment him, it is the patriotic duty of every congressperson to faithfully uphold the constitution by following the facts and pursuing an impeachment inquiry.

If Clintons behavior led to an inquiry and articles, I fail to see how using the same standard would not require one to support impeachment at present.



Nope, it doesn't matter. However its fair that the police try to get to the bottom of the crime and that person should be made available to talk to the suspects defense attorney. Agreed? My point is, if you're willing to go to this point and you feel the info you have is 100% fact, why not share it with the other side. That person can be hidden behind a screen and voice change, to protect their identity, but at lest give the other side a chance to ask their questions.

Mark, if you felt someone was falsely accusing you of something wouldn't you directly want to hear from that person to defend yourself? Or, well the person totally misinterpreted what I did, so I guess I'm guilty all based on interpretation, not fact. I'm sure if you felt you're innocent, you'd fight it tooth & nail.