Gordon Sondland testifies that Ukraine aid was conditioned on Biden investigation

Show me where congress gave them permission then should be easy...... Since when was it up to Obama what funds were or weren't given? That's a congressial decision not a presidential I laid out the proof on the previous page

 

What "Biden's situation" is that? You keep implying that Biden did something illegal or unconstitutional, like Trump did. But, nobody is presenting evidence to justify an investigation of Biden.

Let's agree that investigation and prosecution of crimes gets justified by showing evidence that a criminal law was broken.

And, if you think there is evidence that for personal benefit Biden coerced a foreign official to throw dirt on a domestic political openent, then go for it. Otherwise, you need to explain yourself.

 

when a guy hits another guy would you laugh if the guy said, "it's ok my doctor said its fine"

 

Biden put pressure on Ukraine to remove a prosecutor using Congressial approved federal loan guarantees. Did he get congressial approval to use budgeted funding to do so? Show the resolution

 

Ok let’s say you’re right and Obama had no right to threaten to withhold funds.
It doesn’t change the underlying fact that Biden did NOT make that threat on his own, in order to help his son.
First, his son was not under investigation.
Second, Biden was following administration policy. Not pursuing his own interests.
Completely different from trump, who was pursuing his own political interests and made the decision unilaterally, against the recommendations of his entire administration.

 

He didn’t do that. The Obama administration did that. Biden was just the messenger.

 

My point is objectively its a muddy situation where as Trump saying "no quid pro quo" being a lie, based on the definition of quid pro quo and people like Mulvaney's own words, is the route that Democrats should go imo..... Its clear and easily digested for the public and they face much less crossfire than the using criminal aspect

 

It was the treasury, that’s who Ukraine should investigate lol

 

Gordon Sondland ‘Revises’ His Impeachment Testimony – Says he “Presumed” Quid Pro Quo But with No Evidence

There is nothing wrong with a Quid Pro Quo - See Joe Biden forcing the firing of a foreign nation's top prosecutor even with a six hour deadline.

Trump did nothing like that.

“I presumed that the aid suspension had become linked to the proposed anticorruption statement,” Sondland said.

Democrats election year stunt is to try to impeach the president by pretending that a Quid Pro Quo is illegal, when it isn't, they are quite common and the Quid Pro Quo is 'PRESUMED' by a witness the Democrats browbeat last month?

Sondland asked Trump, “what do you want from Ukraine?”

Trump responded, “I want nothing I want no quid pro quo. I want Zelensky to do the right thing…to do what he ran on.”



“No quid pro quo, no kind of conditions were ever in play,” Jordan said. “The two individuals on the call have been very clear that there was no pressure, no pushing, no quid pro quo. The Ukrainians didn’t even know the aid had been held up at the time of the phone call and they took no actions to release the aid.”

“The aid was released 7 and a half weeks later and there was never any actions taken by President Zelensky or anyone else in Ukraine,” Jordan added.

If the military aid was released to Ukraine without any actions taken by Zelensky, then there was zero quid pro quo.

And there would be nothing wrong with a Quid Pro Quo, were there one.

 

Agreed. Rudy may be crazy, but he's not stupid. He'll know when to begin the flip.

 

Spoken like a truly obsesses Trump Hater.

 

That seems to be your only ploy here on our forum. Try to create some new material. You’ve only been here for a couple days and it’s already stale. We already have 8-9 guys using that same repertoire.

 

The best thing is to simply call them what they are--more obsessed rants by a TWATT (Trump Whiner All The Time).

How's thatt?

 

Comrade Schiff's Spanish Inquistion. What else could it be?

It couldn't be anything that involves due process like the Nixon and Clinton impeachments.

Do they have due process in Australia, or has it been outlawed?

 

Weak and stupid.

 

When you said this ~ 'It is amazing how many people claim first-hand knowledge of something they did not witness and in the face of the transcript of phone call itself.' ~ you were referring to this 'Inquisition?' Makes no sense. Of course Schiff and Members of Congress witnessed nothing, but they are hearing from witnesses who saw everything.

Well, I have no problem with the way the process has gone thus far. Soon enough, Trump will get due process in the House, and of course, he will get absolute due process in the Senate where the 'Trial' takes place.

Of course we have it, but we don't have your political or judicial systems which appear totally corrupted by Party politics.

 

The Hill's John Solomon has a timeline of the Biden corruption scheme.

Here are the highlights:

1) Ukraine corruption investigators raid the house of the owner or Burisma Holdings to find proof of corruption.

2) Fellow Burisma Board member Devon Archer (BHR partner with Hunter Biden and (John Kerry stepson) Chris Heinz) calls Obama Secretary of State John Kerry right away.

Joe Biden has violated several US laws which prohibit US officials from profiting, extorting and shaking down foreign officials for their personal benefit, or the benefit of family members and businesses.

3) Joe Biden calls the president of Ukraine three times right away. (He later claims he never spoke to his son about his business at Burisma)

4)Within days Joe Biden is in Kiev threatening the Ukraine president with withholding $1 billion in US aid if the prosecutor is not fired in 6 hours.

5)Ukraine prosecutor Sholkin at first refuses to resign and then re-signs when asked by the president to resign "for the good of the country".

6)Hunter Biden lawyers arrive in Kiev several days later to meet the new prosecutor in the corruption case. They tell the prosecutor they know the fired prosecutor was not corrupt. They invite the new prosecutor to fly to the US immediately to straighten out the investigation.

7) Joe Biden brags about shaking down the president of Ukraine on camera at a foreign policy forum

Prosecutor Sholkin makes out a court statement under oath to verify the reasons for his firing.

9) Hunter Biden gives an interview on Good Morning America admitting he had no qualifications for his job at Burisma except his name was Biden.

Joe Biden violated several federal statutes which prohibit US officials from extorting, bribing and profiting from foreign officials for themselves and their family members and businesses.

 

This John Solomon?

https://www.thedailybeast.com/leake...rter-who-kicked-off-trumps-ukraine-conspiracy

I am after the link which substantiates this, please.

 

The Spanish Inquistion?
You don't know history? tsk tsk.
Hundreds of years ago the Spanish Courts ran inquistions in which the accused had no right of defense, no right to call witness to help them--same is in Comrade Schiff's committee. PRESIDENT TRUMP and Republicans on the Committee have no right to refute one-sided testimony.

Witnesses Who Saw Everything?
The witnesses you refer to did not participate in the phone call so they cannot testify to a pro quid pro in the phone call. They only have opinions to offer--so what? Opinions are like a**holes--everyone has one and they all stink. The only real witness is the president of Ukraine who said there was no pro quid pro. He had no knowledge foreign aid tied to Biden.

Then tear down your flag of Australia. It should mean nothing to you now. Order a Hammer and Sickle flag and fly it over your pub.

Thank you for supporting PRESIDENT TRUMP and DUE PROCESS. Let Adam Schiff know what you just said.

 

Here are the key excerpts that Axios uses that would, presumably, be the ones to back up their claim.

Where exactly did Sondland state that he "told an aide to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky that military assistance would not be released until Zelensky issued a statement agreeing to investigate a gast company with ties to Biden's son" in any of those excerpts? I see where Sondland "presumed that the aid suspension had become linked to the proposed anti-corruption statement". And I see where he tells mr. Yermak that the "resumption of U.S. aid would like not occur until Ukraine provided the public anti-corruption statement" that they had been discussing. I also see where he responded to a question that is based on an assumption.

But no where do I see where Sondland stated that he told the aide that the military assistance would not be released until Zelensky issed a statement agreeing to investigate the gas company with ties to Biden's son. Could you point it out for me please?

 

Nope, Zelensky knew.

There were many on both sides of the Atlantic listening in on that call. We are beginning to hear from some of them.

Not sure how that follows, but...okay, it's only a bit of material. I am not fussed what is on whatever flag flies over an Aussie pub.

Trump will get his absolute due process. The House is doing him slowly at the moment, but ultimately, it will get to more transparency in the House with Trump having the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses, and in the Senate, a full blown 'Trial' presided over by a Supreme Court Judge. Where is your problem with that?

 

President Zelensky knew?-- that there was no quid pro quo discussed--Strike One
Others Listened on the call?-- they only offer personal opinions--Strike Two
Commie Flags Okay?--I expected that from you--Strike Three

You're out!!

Trump Will Get His Due Process?--

And Trump hits a homerun!!

Thanks and come again.

 

Meh. At least I am at the Ball Park.

 

trump will get his due process in the house via impeachment
Then he will get his due process in the State of New York for tax fraud

 

Keep trying, we've heard this song and dance before. How many others were expected to flip any day now.