Key diplomat says he will testify in House impeachment inquiry despite Trump’s objection

SNIP
Gordon Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union, will appear for a deposition before House committees as part of the impeachment inquiry in spite of an attempt by the Trump administration to block his testimony.

“After consultation with Committee Staff, his testimony is now scheduled for Thursday, October 17,” Sondland’s lawyer, Robert Luskin, said in a statement to NBC News on Friday.
ENDSNIP

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/11/key-diplomat-says-he-will-testify-in-house-impeachment-inquiry.html

Seems like somebody can respect the institutions and powers of Congress... Whatever he says, I salute this move.

My first question to him is the obvious one... why were YOU involved in Ukrainian affairs as the ambassador to the EU???

Also, Yovanovich showed up for her deposition this AM.... Again, against orders of her current employer. This type of action used to be considered standard, now they are considered brave.

I don't know how either of these people will affect the Impeachment inquiry, but since both were mentioned by name by the WB, their stories need to be heard.

Anything coming out of these 2 depositions??

 

I'm sure he's thinking that he doesn't want to get himself in trouble perjuring himself or revealing other illegal activites to protect our jackass president who probably doesn't care if Sondland gets in trouble protecting him. Trump never takes responsibility for anything he does and he's not about to start now.

 

Will he take the fifth, spill the beans or hold to the story?

 

They'll hold to the story because they don't think the story is bad for them....

They are wrong...

I can't see him taking the 5th as I don't see what he could self incriminate on.... Backing up Trump's no QPQ story certainly isn't a crime...

 

Remember he already went to a senator claiming it was a QPQ. They’ll ask him under oath if he spoke to trump before sending the “uh oh this is in writing” text. What he told Johnson and why....

 

Yup.. good topics all

SNIP
Johnson said that the US ambassador to the European Union, Gordon Sondland, told him in late August that the administration was demanding Ukraine investigate “what happened in 2016,” and that if President Trump had “confidence” in the investigation, he’d “release the military spending.”
ENDSNIP

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/10/4/20899096/ron-johnson-trump-sondland-ukraine-aid

The right will spin that "what happened in 2016" has nothing to do with the Bidens (and it doesn't), but it doesn't matter... Investigating anything to do with our elections should have no connection with releasing approved military aid.

Asking for investigations against Bidens in return for the aid sounds worse, but the above is just as bad...

 

This guy is a Trump mega-donor, but I welcome ANY testimony. I suspect that once we get these guys under oath, where they know lying will result in prison time, the following story will emerge, which will most likely dovetail with the call summary we already have and Trump's open invitation for China to investigate his political opponent:
1. Ukraine was asked for a "favor" to investigate the Bidens.
2. Military aid was used as a bargaining chip.
3. Senior administration people freaked out.
4. There was a failed cover-up.

 

Well, I'm pretty sure 1,3, and 4 are known facts. If 2 can be proven, and by that I mean that Zelensky knew his aid was being withheld before the call (not why, just that it was) that's your quid pro quo and big time trouble.

Zelensky didn't have to feel "blackmailed" - an interesting choice of words... If I tell you I've got your allowance in my pocket, but I ask you to do me a favor and cut the grass, you are going to assume your allowance is now dependent on cutting the grass..

And that is not a hypothetical either....

 

The quid-pro-quo part is the easiest to prove, actually. Whenever a big country asks a favor of a smaller country that is receiving military aid from the big country AND is in a military conflict, the smaller country knows that that aid can be removed at any time. It's like a sword of Damocles hanging over them. Every conversation they have with their benefactors carries with it the implied threat that that aid can be shut off at any time. The word "favor" is what's really damning.

However, this view requires some nuance. And Trumpkins are terrible at nuance, so it would be nice if we have some testimony saying that aid was withheld to get the Ukranians to start the investigation. I suspect we'll get this testimony from multiple people.

 

Agree with some of that, but not all... For me, the most damning words in the call notes is "Biden" during a discussion about corruption. If Trump could have kept it general and not gone specific, I'm not sure we'd be here today...

I'm not sure who you think is going to testify to something that it's possible Trump decided all by himself, but I hope you are correct...

 

Ambassador Yovanovich's opening statement - Read it all the way through

SNIP
He added that there had been a concerted campaign against me, and that the Department had been under pressure from the President to remove me since the Summer of 2018. He also said that I had done nothing wrong and that this was not like other situations where he had recalled ambassadors for cause.

I was nevertheless incredulous that the U.S. government chose to remove an Ambassador based, as best as I can tell, on unfounded and false claims by people with clearly questionable motives.

Our efforts were intended, and evidently succeeded, in thwarting corrupt interests in Ukraine, who fought back by selling baseless conspiracy theories to anyone who would listen. Sadly, someone was listening, and our nation is the worse off for that.
ENDSNIP

https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthe...8cf6b834149b4867fb5/optimized/full.pdf#page=1

 

You point out one of the reasons why Presidents must be held to a higher standard. Presidents of the United States, by virtue of their power and authority, are supremely cautioned and coached against even providing the semblance of a vague quid-pro-quo statement.

 

Yeah, the mention of Biden's name. That's very, very bad.

Even Tucker Carlson had problems with this. Tucker, of all people!

 

What about Vice Presidents.... How about Secs of State? How about wives of Presidents?
How about Speakers of the House?

 

What did Melania do today,? Another jacket with words?? That rascal...

Did it say "Free Melania"??

Time to focus...

 

the 17th will be a very exciting day for democrats.

I caution that they have had many such days that turned out to be let downs, but I wish y'all the best

 

You know damn well who i speak of.

 

BRAVO.. ..

 

Your avatar should be a crow... Then again they are going extinct at this rate but atleast you all have full bellies.

 

What about discussing the actual topic and not whataboutisms?

 

Working for an amoral man ruins even accomplished man.. Look at the men who have left Trump (and women too)

Tillerson. Mattis, Kelly... Even Hope Hicks and Nikki Halley.

This episode of having a leader who assumes everyone who is smart launders money is drawing to a close. Bury him.

 

That's nice. It is a difference that doesn't really chance anything

 

"You point out one of the reasons why Presidents must be held to a higher standard. Presidents of the United States, by virtue of their power and authority, are supremely cautioned and coached against even providing the semblance of a vague quid-pro-quo statement."

I responded to a post in context.. Run along.

Claims about whataboutism is equal to saying you dont want to discuss something and we know damn why.. The whole outrage falls apart.

Have a nice day as always Melo.. Oh yah.. Lol!

 

You responded with a whataboutism, that's the point of his post.