Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Sondland

Anybody watching?

Oh yes.

He is really impressed with who he thinks he is

Internet radio in the background. Demo council is up. Interesting that he's treating his own witness as a hostile witness. Almost every question is leading and the predicates to the questions often assume facts not in evidence. Amounts to council putting words in the witness' mouth.

Silly reindeer games, proves nothing of substance. Or to use a dated meme, a giant nothingburger.

Sondland is being very specific that in his phone call with President Trump that the word "Biden" did not come up. He said he mentioned "Burisma" and the 2016 elections but not the Bidens.

The people who overheard Sondland and Trump in the Kiev restaurant, if its proven they spoke to several others in the following weeks that Sondland and Trump both spoke about Biden in the restaurant... then he just perjured himself.

Deflect, deflect, launch countermeasures! YOu guys must not be watching, because Sondland is the direct link, no hearsay. Very clear quid pro quo, whatever you want to call it, I don't care. Behavior unbecoming for POTUS, and illegal, and not what we, meaning WE the people, want any Potus to do, use their influence for personal gain. Trump is slimy, dirty, and does NOT have our best interests in mind, only his own self-enrichment, that's it. We can find other GOP candidates that will do a far better job.

This is what I thought only half listening. I need smarter people than me to validate my thoughts sometimes. Thanks.

Hey stupid,quid pro quo is not a crime.

The foreign policy of this nation is based upon quid pro quo.We give nations money if they enact policies which are favorable to the U.S.

There was no mention of the loathsome Bidens in this conversation,as the fake news has repeatedly and wrongfully reported.

Hearing only one side of a conversation is meaningless.

This is something that you Demonrats/Commies/homos should know something about.lol

This.

Quid pro quo as clear as Biden's?

Like I've said all along, if somebody wants to launch a criminal investigation into the Biden's go for it, just don't be the POTUS and ask Ukraine to do it for you so you can get reelected. What an idiot.

So whatever Sondland says must be true? If you're that naive have I got a deal on a bridge for you!

Biden's was clear as day as opposed to multiple people some changing testimony and perjuring themselves.

It is within his scope to ask for an investigation. What part of that do you not understand?

Yup, you all have been preaching hearsay. Can't be true, because they heard it second and third hand. Now it's not hearsay, so he must be a liar. I can't believe how far people will go to support this loser.

Speaking of idiots, why don't you cite the law you think would have been violated had Trump done that?

It is almost as if he were duty bound to do so.

https://www.congress.gov/treaty-document/106th-congress/16/document-text

Correct, and he gave the Ukraines(Russia's enemy to the ballwashers posting here) Javelin missles and other military hardware not Blankets like the Messiah had done. That doesn't look good for the Bidens and Obongo does it ?

Your stupidity knows no bounds.

The President asked for an investigation into a corrupt company known as Burisma.The dirty Bidens were never mentioned in this conversation.It certainly is within the scope of the head of the executive branch to request an investigation of any company.

Once again you failed in your knowledge about this call.I wouldn't expect anything less from a Demonrat/Commie/homo posing as a conservative.

Substantively, not a good day for the President. Evidence is very muddled and more importantly no direct linkage to the President, but there will be Articles of Impeachment and the zoo will go over to the Senate where it will go nowhere.

A person who who is a Democrat operative and had never met Trump or spoken to him heard the phone call.

In that person's opinion, it was quid pro quo.

The two parties in the phone call have said it was not.

The summary of the transcripts show that there was no explicit quid pro quo (like there was with Biden)

The funds were released and there was no investigation.

That's the whole of the evidence at this point. If this makes it to the Senate where the rule of law, rather than mob rule prevails, it's going to get bounced in a hurry.

It is possible that people are supporting the rule of law rather than the person.

Quid pro quo is what politics is. It's what politicians do. No free lunch.

your statement has to be one of the dumbest ever posted on the fire.

Ol’ Gordon doesn’t seem to be the sharpest tool.

Quid pro quo, means this for that. I'll send you the military aid, once you announce an investigation, a "favor." Trump asked for it, because he directly benefits from it. It helps his reelection campaign if his opponent is under investigation. Hopefully we can all see that. Quid pro quo isn't illegal in and of itself, the US does it all the time. But what Trump was asking interferes in the US's political process. SO forget about quid pro quo, Trump solicited help from a foreign nation. He explicitly did it, requesting that Zelensky look into the Bidens and the debunked conspiracy theory that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 election. It is accepted by the entire intelligence community that Russia was behind it. SO regardless of quid pro quo, it is illegal for a candidate or campaign to "solicit" help from a foreign gov't, whether it's money or something else of value. Bribery is also illegal, and grounds for impeachment. "specific intent to give or receive something of value (Biden investigation) in exchange for an official act (meeting at WH, military aide).

So then Biden should expect the police at his door any minute? Trump didn't do anything of the sort.

More, there's just not enough there for any kind of case against the President:
10 mins ago
Amb. Sondland: Ukraine quid pro quo based on 'my own personal guess'

As it should be, the ELECTORATE should decide this...

Regurgitating lies from the fake news only proves that you're a Demonrat lying about your true political affiliation.

Now go kill yourself.

Nor does preww1.

Biden was there on official bipartisan US business, getting rid of a CORRUPT official, that was NOT investigating (including Burisma) corrupt corporations.
Biden in his OFFICIAL bipartisan US business wanted a official in there that would actually investigate corruption... INCLUDING Burisma!!!

If Biden where doing what you are claiming, he would want the corrupt official kept in office, so he would still not investigate Burisma.


Not sure why this is difficult to understand?


.

How is an investigation a thing of value when you don't know the outcome? Imagine this. Trump asks for an investigation, it shows Biden was above board in all his actions, that actually backfires on Trump. I am of the opinion that an investigation where the outcome is unknown has no political value one way or another So that's just one legal hurdle.

Here's another. If it is accepted that an investigation, the results of which are not known, is a thing of value, you have to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump did it for political reasons.

That is where the pesky treaty comes into play. He can always point to it and say, this is why I did it. I was duty bound to do so.

How is Trump asking for an investigation not bipartisan? Do we not all want to know the truth?

On one hand it sounds like you are glad they got rid of a prosecutor who was not investigating, then complaining that we tried to get the new one to investigate. This is one tough shell game to follow.

ThAn you're not too sharp either (which we are acutely aware of). Biden was there to get our tax money to them back in his pockets as he did getting his brother a $1.5 billion deal out of Iran several years ago.

I agree, you're too stupid to be a teacher or to be able to add 2 and 3 and connect the dots.

Remind us how the dims dont want our guns as you lied to us years ago.

Poor Walt.

The dear leader seems to choose those types.

So.. A Republican President, wants to investigate his #1 Political opponent of the Democratic Party would in what world be bipartisan.


He could just drop hints in the press... and it blow up anyway.

He instead used Congressional bipartisan approved Military aid, to get another country to investigate his main political opponent in the Democratic Party..

Why not call FBI... they would do it for him.


Next Democratic President should just get China and Russia to investigate the entire Republican Party, so they could use that information in every congressional and senate elections the next 10 years... Totally bipartisan...


In return they could just give them the Treasonous South as payments.

.

Has anyone shown that any laws have been broken????????????????? What laws?????????????????

Where's the "high crime"?

MM

Sondland just testified that the Bidens were never mentioned in the conversation.


Checkmate.

It's still quid pro quo no matter what the reason Biden was there.


Not sure why THIS is difficult to understand.

Schiff knows......just ask him

Schiif is fishing,,,and fishing,,,and fishing,,,and fishing.............NO crimes in the lake he is fishing in....LOL>>>LOL

The truth is never partisan. Why would anyone in any party be afraid of learning the truth? Do you feel this treaty burdens the president to work with Ukraine in rooting our criminal behavior? https://www.congress.gov/treaty-document/106th-congress/16/document-text

If not, why not?

That's three questions if you'd be so kind. Thank you.

Consider who you are trying to elucidate. A serial moron...

Two years of Mueller, than Nadler, then racist accusations, then recession promoting, then quid pro quo- then not- then oh yes it is again. Throw in invented Russian Hookers, Russian interference, Ukranian corruption that made Hunter Biden rich as hell, fake dossier, security leaks, destruction of all devices from Hillary's team members, Biden bragging about his QPQ and while we are at it add Blasey-ford and death of Epstein and some other bs and what do you have? Nothing but improprieties (polite word) of the democratic party still supported by people having nerve enough to say that DJT eluding to something is an impeachable offense.

To look at this item through the enormous microscope while ignoring all these other points is nothing short of derangement.

They won't vote to impeach, though they will have the vote. All about tainting Trump with the Scarlet "I" (impeachment). IF they send it to the senate they will have a trial, and unlike the house's current status with demand letters masquerading as subpeonas, the senate will subpeona Eric Ciaramella, the Bidens, Schiff, etc and expose Schiff's sham impeachment attempt for that it is... a Schiff Show. The D's can't have that exposure.

The house D's from red districts aren't going to vote for impeachment. The best outcome for the democrats is to vote for impeachment, have it fail and then they can say "Well Trump is obviously guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors and we tried to impeach him but didn't have the votes," (nevermind they can't show where any crime/misdemeanor was committed). Mad Maxine will be all "We peached fodi fi!"

My impression as well.

If asking a foreign government to investigate your political opponent is such a "high crime" why is Hilary not in jail? Pardon the inconvenient question....

What about any of this is impeachable? Investigating corruption in any country looking for aid from US is the President’s duty under Article ll. Burisma is corrupt, Ukraine has been one of the most corrupt countries on the planet. Burisma Pres ran off with $23M of US money per Kent. Both US and GB are still trying to recover. In my life I’ve never seen someone twist and create an incident that never happened. Even if Trump wanted the Bidens looked into and mentioned it it still falls under his Article II responsibility. They’ll never be any connection to an inappropriate exchange, “do this and you’ll get the money”, cause it never happened. Again, somehow in today’s environment apparently the left knows what you’re thinking. Thought police were a very useful tools in Nazi Germany, Soviet Union, China, and now apparently in the U.S.A.

He sure is thirsty. Gonna have to call for a pee break.

Yup.

So asking a country to help the U.S. AG with an investigation into corruption that may involve the Biden's from 2016 when the Democrats were using the Ukrainians to gin up what turned out to be false dirt on Trump, and the Ukrainians were hoping Clinton would win by the way, you think that is wrong. I think that is exactly why we voted for Trump. To clean up the swamp that is pervasive in Washington. If it is OK for Obama and his people to do any of this, which they did, than Trump asking the Ukrainian President to root out the corruption that made up these false accusation against him should at the very least be OK.

Both you losers are gonna be disappointed in this outcome as well.

Get help for your TDS, It's embarrassing.

Sondland also say Trump never mentioned a quid pro quo to him. He at most just surmised it. I didn't know we had mind readers now. I thought that was always a myth.

Beyond mind reading, he also admitted ignorance of the president's responsibility to rule out corruption before bestowing foreign aid. You don't suppose that colored his assumptions?.....

Is Biden the nominee for the Democrat party for 2020?

Once again, where's the crime? What law(s) has been broken?

Have the Demons made up a new one?

MM

Idiot??? Yes you very much resemble that remark.

MM, Google "public corruption" laws, that is what the House is looking to prove.

Not even close.......................

MM

So let me get this straight.

Pres of Ukraine didn't know why aid was withheld. Ukraine never investigated anything. Ukraine got aid in the amounts agreed upon.

And there is a problem?????? I guess I have a hard time seeing it.

Which public corruption law?

You asked, there are laws on the books against swamp behavior.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/201

Just heard Starr. Not even close. He was just quoting s hitforbrains Schiff..

Wrong thread Jorge.

That statute only applies to US officials. What US official did trump bribe?

Sondland appears to be suffering from buyers remorse.

Nope! The law is not that narrowly written.

Sondland and Dems just took some major butt hurt from Turner.

So.. A Republican President, wants to investigate his #1 Political opponent of the Democratic Party would in what world be bipartisan.

Maybe if you were not the worlds greatest producer of dingleberries and the least thoughtful navelgazer you might look into Burisma yourself. Easy to do just type it into the search bar. Wouldn't you want the corruption of a candidate for the presidency brought out?


He could just drop hints in the press... and it blow up anyway.

Or he could do like Hillary did, pay Russians and Ukrainians millions to dig up dirt on the Demrat nominee which is not Biden and will not be Biden.

He instead used Congressional bipartisan approved Military aid, to get another country to investigate his main political opponent in the Democratic Party..

Still stupid I see, So it is not important to you that our tax dollars should not go to a corrupt country? Or that Ukraine's involvement in the 2016 election was wrong and greatly pissed Trump off?

Why not call FBI... they would do it for him.

Like I would trust the FBI if I were Trump. You still are clueless.


Next Democratic President should just get China and Russia to investigate the entire Republican Party, so they could use that information in every congressional and senate elections the next 10 years... Totally bipartisan...

Back to Hillary again, she had the DNC go to Ukraine to meet Russians and corrupt Ukrainians to do the same thing in 2016, what Trump is trying to get to the bottom of.


In return they could just give them the Treasonous South as payments.

Come on down and try to collect jackass.

Did the little Sicilian fellow from “The Princess Bride” go into politics?

Pretty devastating, but Schitt is once again, twisting what was said.

MM

I know, non corroborated and presumed testimony (within Sondland’s mind) is fine with Schiff.

How in the hell can Sondland say there was quid pro quo and then he says Trump told him he wanted nothing, nothing, no quid pro quo?

That's what I want to know.

You need to read the definition of “public official” in the first paragraph

You need to read the subsequent paragraphs, only one US official needs to be part of the swamp behaviour.

I'm not watching this chit because it's all a charade. The Democrats were going to find something to try and impeach Trump.......period. They thought they had it with the Mueller Report, and when they did not, Trump did one of the dumbest things a sitting president has ever done, and gave them the Ukraine call. He should never have made the phone call in the first place, and if he were going to, it should have been done in TOTAL secrecy. What he did was nothing that hasn't been done in Washington before, and will most certainly happen again. While a dumb move, I don't see it as anywhere close to impeachment.

I can't stand listening to all sides see who can tell the biggest lie, and watch the Democrats march out dumbass after dumbass trying to pass them off as some kind of expert on foreign policy. They wanted Trump so badly, that they would have tried impeaching him over pissing in the wrong bathroom at the White House........and he probably would have accommodated them by doing just that.

I just want this crap to hurry up and end.

Trump needs to be more careful of who he sells million dollar ambassadorships to.

PREZACTLY.

Trump read the same statement to the Press this evening.
From the transcription from the phone call.

Game. Set. MATCH!!!

‘cause he’s a moe-ron?

Rush said Jordan worked him over pretty good.