Donald Trump’s Presidency 2017 - 2021 AND 2025-202X
"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.
That "anti-corruption statement" was described in Kurt Volker's text to Sondland from August 13, and is unambiguously about Biden:
- 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.
- 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.
- Mid August - Volker and Sondland draft a public statement to be made by Ukraine announcing investigations into the Bidens and the 2016 elections.
- 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:
- September 1: Sondland had this exchange with Ukrainian ambassador Bill Taylor, according to text messages released by Ukraine envoy Kurt Volker:
- Taylor then talks to Sondland by phone, where Sondland indicates that not just aid, but 'everything' is being withheld until Zelenskiy publicly announces the investigations demanded by Trump:
- 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:
Sondland's testimony on the ensuing 4.5 hour gap in his texts with Taylor:
Part 2
"And his next text with Taylor:
"https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/ds3yeb/megathread_house_impeachment_committee_releases/f6my1tg/
"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.
- September 10th: Adam Schiff writes to the ICIG to demand the Whistleblower complaint.
- September 11th: Trump releases the military aid.
- September 12-13 - Taylor learns from Sondland that Zelenskiy planned to give a CNN interview announcing the investigations Trump demanded, but Ukrainian officials inform him it has now been canceled."
"https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/ds3yeb/megathread_house_impeachment_committee_releases/f6my1tg/
Come on, man... that's just the way bigly deals get done!
HeS A sUcSesSFuL BusInEsS mAn!
What in the all unholy........
www.axios.com
"It's not a crime if I don't read about it!" - Lindsay Graham. Republicans going full Ostrich.
Lindsey Graham says he won't read House deposition transcripts
"I've written the whole process off ... I think this is a bunch of B.S."
www.axios.com
"It's not a crime if I don't read about it!" - Lindsay Graham. Republicans going full Ostrich.
So you hate the Jews too?
What Israel does is not necessarily what ‘the Jews’ support, but you know this.
What are you, Chabad or something?
Nope, Reform Jew
There's a reputable, unbiased source.
and the others aren't? Well I guess it depends what you want to hear & believe. Right?
What does it matter who the whistleblower is if their complaint exposes serious criminal acts?
Not really a subject of this thread, but at least Kentucky came to its senses.
Blame the fire detector!
Once the police have been called to a crime scene, does it matter who called the police?
This is totally unfair how Democrats are using facts and law!!!
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.
No, I don't. Israel is a nation based on the theft of land and the violent suppression of the people who lived there. Both activities continue.
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.
WhY dOn'T tHE dEmOCrAts wAnT TraNSpEraNcY?!?!?
www.rollcall.com
It's almost like they aren't really acting in good faith.........
Fucking traitors.
Most Republicans on impeachment committees aren’t showing up, transcripts reveal - Roll Call
Republicans have for weeks blasted the closed-door impeachment process, but transcripts released this week of private depositions show most GOP lawmakers on the three panels at the center of the probe have simply not shown up. The low attendance for most committee Republicans paints a very...
www.rollcall.com
It's almost like they aren't really acting in good faith.........
Fucking traitors.
rumor is that there are at least 7. and not all of them concern Donnie.
at this point i'm not entirely convinced he's able to readWhat in the all unholy........
Lindsey Graham says he won't read House deposition transcripts
"I've written the whole process off ... I think this is a bunch of B.S."
"It's not a crime if I don't read about it!" - Lindsay Graham. Republicans going full Ostrich.
the best wallguys . . . GUYS! most of you are completely overlooking what and amazing infrastr...
Smugglers have been sawing through Trump's border wall
The wall was a significant policy and rallying cry during Trump's campaign.
www.axios.com
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
.....and to investigate Biden. as has now been corroborated with firsthand accounts.
and trump admitted to it.
that is the ***DEFINITION*** of a quid pro quo.
it's come to light that many of the GOP members who are permitted to attend the testimony simply aren't going.
....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
trump has been on twitter "defending" himself by admitting he did it.
they have numerous firsthand accounts now. plus trump has admitted it.
all credible polls show trump losing to all 3 of the leading democratic candidates.
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.
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.