14 thoughts on “The Sondland Testimony”

  1. Thanks Rand pointing to fake news, got a question what was the date when Trump told Sondland that he wanted “Nothing” ?

    What else was going on at that time?

    1. Not much, but two or so days after the initial hold was released Ukraine elected a new administration which replaced lots of people, including the top defense posts, so a new review had to be started because the old one was suddenly irrelevant. For all the Pentagon knew, the unknown candidate could have been a Russian puppet or a stooge of some oligarch or kleptocrat.

    2. When did Trump tell Sondland he wanted this for that? According to Sondland’s testimony, it was a presumption on his part, and not Trump, Giuliani, Pompeo, or Pence told him it was a quid pro quo. Alas this is a political impeachment, as Sondland’s testimony would have been thrown out in a court of law. You don’t get to presume others mindset, despite progressives routine attempts to do so.

      Still hilarious here in the UK, where the BBC spun Sondland, within 30 mins of the start of the hearing, that the GOP Senators were going to ask Trump to resign. I’m sure much of Labour was disappointed when they woke up this morning.

  2. Have the Democrats, or anyone, managed to attempt to explain how, even if Trump withheld the aid explicitly contingent upon Ukrine investigating, it rises to anywhere near the same level as Democrats (DNC included) laundering money through one of their lawyers to pay Fusion GPS to hire British Mi5’s Christopher Steele to bribe Russians for dirt on Trump, fake dirt that they then tried to dress up as authentic to sink him? That’s not digging for dirt from foreigners?

    Or, have the democrats tried to explain why 4 US senators writing a letter to Ukraine, threatening to cut off their aid and future relations, unless Ukraine investigates Trump, is somehow okay?

    Or, if merely investigating one’s political oponents is wrong, then how does one explain the whole special council investigation, or for that matter the current impeachment investigation?

    As for Sondland, to me it all comes down to one of his answers; he has no actual knowledge, only his own presumptions, regarding any tie between aid (or a white house meeting) and investigations. He said this explicitly during questioning. And this was supposed to be their star witness?

    As for the angle that Trump offered a meeting with the Ukrainian president if the investigations happened,, that appears false as well, but even if not, so what? It’s not as if Trump was offering the guy a Lincoln bedroom stay in the white house in return for being a top fundraiser. (you know, like the Clintons famously did, and did often…).

    1. Some good questions CJ on some I sort of agree though Trump often did the same thing but have a much straighter line to corrupt intent where some of the stuff you mention have to do more reading between lines and connecting of dots (Such as their 4 degree to 5 degree of separation from Hillary to Russia Via Steele where as Trump is at 2 or 3 depending on how you define Wikileaks and 1 case 1 degree with the “Russian Adoption” meeting). IN the end Hillary campaign had far more knowledge of how to do the dirty but keep the campaign hands far cleaner and toeing the line.

      Think you a bit too trusting of the kool aid drinkers talking points.
      On the steele Dossier
      1. Can you point me to evidence that Hillary Campaign knew how the money was spent. For it to be launder the originator has to had intent of the final destination of where the money to go be distributed . Seen no evidence that the Hillary campaign knew the terminus of the money went. Farthest is maybe the law firm expense report of the contracting Fusion GPS

      On the letter:
      Here is the letter unless their another one. There less a Implied threat here than Trumps “Perfect Call”. More stating if they stopped working with Muller cause of threats from Trump administration, reverse course and then seeking information for why they stopped.

      Investigating Political foes:
      Their official channels to do investigation of people and political opponents we had all the same information since 2016 trump wasn’t interested until 2019. Trump was subverting the official channels and more just want announcement of investigation by a foreign power on American TV , that is not how things are done.

      As Sondland goes he stated he was directed to work with Giuliani and Giuliani was Trump agent and the Transcript further points to Trump stating Giuliani as his agent and working in his interests. Now I got a question Pompeo clearly working against Trump/Giuliani after ousting the former Ukraine Ambassador. Why wasn’t a Giuliani bobo put in charge? Instead of pulling William Taylor out of retirement.

      So what Lincoln bedroom:
      CJ really two wrongs make a right? I was all for impeaching Clinton, in the end we need to draw a line in the Sand . At this point their is nothing a president can do that will get him remove from office and Trump has shown he will continually push the boundaries and has shed many of the shackles he originally had. Now we traded DNC donors for stays at Lincoln Bedroom, to lining Trump’s family pocket for stays at Mara Lago.

      In the end I view Trump as the republican Bill Clinton, I despised the democrats for their apologist to Clinton and now the republicans have debased them selves further the only Politician with a principal bone in his body is Amash.
      Though the democrats can still be as Feckless as they are such as Pelosi bemoaning Congress obligation of oversight and checking the executive branch and wishing the DOJ could investigate the president for criminal activity.

      1. All the stuff with Wikileaks shows that the Trump campaign had no relationship with Russia or Wikileaks and had no access to the DNCs emails other than what was already public and certainly did not work with Russia to hack the DNC.

        Democrat’s central claims about Trump, Russia, and Wikileaks were all shown to be false, repeatedly. They were also shown to be carefully crafted deceits used by DNC operatives in the media and corrupt DNC government employees to justify spying on a Presidential campaign, influencing the election, and overthrowing a duly elected President in a coup.

        There are no degrees of separation for Hillary and Fusion GPS. Fusion GPS was hired by her campaign, violating campaign finance regulations, and they were paid by the DNC, Hillary campaign, and the DOJ. Fusion GPS worked with foreign nationals and governments, as well as the Obama administration.

        The Obama administration was the most corrupt in modern history and they worked to rig the election for Hillary, who in turn rigged the Democrat primary to get the nomination. It isn’t a crime for Trump to expose what happened. Surviving a coup isn’t an impeachable offense.

        1. Um Wodun first thing clearly you don’t understand the definition of “Coup” . So Guess we just regurgitating the President or other provocateur talking points ah?

          Um how bout this the Trump Campaign believed Stone had the connection.. They were clued in by April , Assange didn’t announce till July.

          Um this disputes your claim. So far I’ve seen nothing that disputes what was said here. Perkins Coie fire walled Fusion GPs and DNC/Hillary . Nunes been barking up the financials for Fusion GPS but hasn’t come up with much. If he did I am sure be all over places if it was true.

          Trump wasn’t only doing Oppo research with the Power of the US Government Resources, he was looking to create material (Ukrainian announcement) to bolster the credibility of his oppo research.

          UM Trump been in charge for 3 years I would expect their be documentation for Improper Obama involvement in the proper channels investigation of Trump.
          Wow Obama admin that was able to seize control of 16% of the GDP they seem to be awful incompetent at rigging elections. Unless you want to go with Obama as Putin puppet was making sure the next Putin puppet won and succeeded.
          Though personally I more side with Fiona Problem is POTUS doesn’t recognize it and seems to Refuse any Russian Involvement at all as POTUS all to Keep with his own marketing. But during the campaign he was actively looking for it.

          1. Um how bout this the Trump Campaign believed Stone had the connection..

            Not really. Wikileaks always releases a series of documents. Expecting them to release more isn’t a sign of working with Wikileaks. It also shows that the Trump campaign didn’t work with Russia to hack the DNC and also weren’t working with Wikileaks. Your link shows a lack of intimate knowledge, no insider information.

            On the surface, that suggests Stone — and by extension, the president — had advance knowledge of WikiLeaks’ plans. However, several days earlier, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange had given an interview to CNN in which he used similar language, saying his group might release “a lot more material” relevant to the U.S. election.

            You can go read the indictment. It is intentionally vague when talking about the specific dates documents were release by Wikileaks and specific dates of phone calls and other communications. This is because the timelines used by the corrupt DOJ don’t line up. Stone wasn’t convicted on any charges relating to working with Wikileaks or Russia but rather on process crimes he was baited into by an investigation that was nothing more than a political act by corrupt Democrats.

            So far I’ve seen nothing that disputes what was said here. Perkins Coie fire walled Fusion GPs and DNC/Hillary .

            Are you saying Hillary and the DNC paid Perkies Coie but because they engaged in shenanigans to obfuscate this that there is a “firewall”? If so, you are essentially saying that because the money was laundered that it is clean.

            Trump wasn’t only doing Oppo research with the Power of the US Government Resources, he was looking to create material (Ukrainian announcement) to bolster the credibility of his oppo research.

            I will concede that by including Biden in the phone call, it does create the appearance of a conflict of interest even though we know that Biden bragged about telling the Ukrainians that he was withholding billions in funding until they fired the prosecutor. However, looking into corruption isn’t illegal.

            When Obama spied on the Trump campaign it wasn’t necessarily illegal. It all depended on the predicate for the investigation. We know that no one in the Trump campaign was working with the Russians, so what was the evidence used by the Obama administration to justify Crossfire Hurricane and the Special Counsel? There are currently several investigations looking into it.

            What was the predicate for Trump asking about Biden’s kid? It was Biden’s own words bragging about withholding over a billion dollars until they fired the prosecutor investigating the company his son worked at. A son hired purely for his political connections. It was such a serious concern that Obama was prepping his own State Department nominees on that specific issue long before Trump was around.

            UM Trump been in charge for 3 years I would expect their be documentation for Improper Obama involvement in the proper channels investigation of Trump.

            The Democrats working in the DOJ, CIA, and State Department have been very good at obstructing investigations but they are taking place. There was also the small matter of the SC that drug out for many years even though they knew on day one that there were no collusion or illegal acts of working with Russia. The existence of the SC hamstrung the Trump admin from holding the Obama administration accountable for their misdeeds. But there are three investigations taking place right now.

            Unless you want to go with Obama as Putin puppet

            Obama who was caught on mic saying to tell Putin he would be more flexible after the election? The Obama who constantly acted in the best interest of Russia? Even Fiona said that Obama withheld aid to Ukraine so as not to upset the Russians. Had Hillary been elected, it would have been great for Russia as Democrat policies have always been those that strengthen Russia and Democrats have an ideological affinity for the Russian political system.

            Though personally I more side with Fiona Problem is POTUS doesn’t recognize it and seems to Refuse any Russian Involvement at all

            Here we agree a little. Fiona is right when she says Russia meddled on all sides. All of the data released to independent investigators from FB and Twitter showed this but when they started reporting these results, FB and Twitter cut off access to the data. Russia organized meatspace events for Democrats and Republicans. They organized a protest against immigrants where under ten people showed up and they organized black lives matters events where thousands of people showed up. They even organized popular anti-Trump protests post election.

            Who responded to Russia’s efforts? Democrats ate it up while Republicans were largely unresponsive.

            Trump has been saying that Russia didn’t meddle in the election for him and its true that they didn’t meddle in the election for him exclusively. So why did the Obama administration make that claim? Why did the Democrat controlled companies, FB and Twitter, stop giving access to the data that disproved the Obama administration’s claim?

            Why has the media narrative been one that Russia acted solely on behalf of Trump and that Trump worked with Russia to hack the DNC?

            Fiona was right on that point but it didn’t show Trump was wrong, it showed the Democrats were wrong, the Obama administration was wrong, and that the Democrat operatives in the media pushing Russian Collusion Delusion for four years were wrong.

      2. @ Engineer, Wodun has already addressed most of the points (very well IMHO) so I’ll limit my reply to the letter by the 4 senators, and the Lincoln Bedroom issue.

        On the latter, I’m old enough to remember it firsthand (I was in high school) and what I do not recall is anyone at all suggesting that Clinton should be impeached and removed from office for it. The reason was pretty simple; what he was doing was shady as heck, but, not specifically illegal. Likewise, same applies to presidential meetings for top donors. (Clinton is not the only one to do that, BTW).

        Regarding the letter. Apparently I misremembered, I thought it was four senators, but apparently it’s 3. In questions 2&3, they specifically mention the Trump administration and ask questions about its actions. They also drop a heavy hint regarding that Ukraine has “A significant opportunity” to carry out “A more thorough investigation” into crimes committed in the former Ukrainian president’s era. (which is precisely what Trump is accused of). The letter specifically mentions Paul Matafort (one of Trump’s former campaign managers). (Though not, as I mistakenly claimed, the Trump campaign by name).

        There is a clear implied threat to Ukraine in that letter. Moreso than in Trump’s phone transcripts, at least. The fact that no one batted an eye when Democrats do things like this means they can’t whine when Trump does it.

        I’d much prefer that no one abused the system, and I’d also prefer that when that does occur, there are consequences. However, given the far more egregious abuses by Democrats both current and recent, Democrats whining about Trump’s abuses (And yes, I do see some) get no sympathy or support from me. Something about removing the beam from one’s own eye before pointing out a splinter in your brother’s eye comes to mind…

        BTW, as for official channels and due process regarding investigations, and subversion for political aims thereby, I’d prefer to defer this discussion until after Dec 11th, when we’ll have some interesting new news to chew on. We’ve already had a small taste, assuming CNN has it right (big assumption, I know); an FBI official altering documents prior to submitting them to a FISA court for a warrant on Carter Page.

    2. If it’s bribery to condition a White House visit on doing something, then Obama should have been impeached for conditioning White House visits on winning national championships such as the Superbowl or World Series, or bundling $10 million in campaign donations.

      In order to hurl charges at Trump, Schiff, Pelosi, and the rest are insulting everyone’s intelligence with their attempts to completely redefine the law and the English language such that virtually everyone whose ever held office would also be guilty of the crime.

      1. George, you’ve overlooking the main foundations of the bribery charge; the Democrats ran a few terms by a focus group and found that “bribery” was seen as more serious (I wish I was kidding about that…). Therefor, that’s what they switched focus to. It has everything to do with political optics and precisely nothing to do with actual facts.

        After all, if facts were at all relevant, witnesses saying things like “only in my own presumption” would be the end of the matter.

        It’s also worth remembering that the we do have a hard legal precedent when it comes to presidential crimes that rise to the level of removal from office. Perjury, obstruction, and abuse of office don’t do so – as we learned from the Clinton impeachment, when the Democrats told us exactly that.

    3. This is truly bizarre. The Democrats are basically building the case that everything they’ve done since mid 2016 should be illegal. Just at the time that all that they have done is being investigated. I think they are trying for one of two things. Either to halt the investigation, in a manner similar to what they did with Sessions, by implicating the investigators as being involved with Trump’s supposed effort of personal political gain. If that fails, then I think they’ll make a case for Jury nullification, because if Trump can do all these things and not be punished, shouldn’t they not be punished. Of course, the difference will be evidence.

      I am concerned about the precedents that politican are above being investigating unless by Congress. I think that will be squashed by Dunham, but it does feel like a pipe dream.

      1. “This is truly bizarre. The Democrats are basically building the case that everything they’ve done since mid 2016 should be illegal.”

        If you want to know what the Dem/Soccies have done and are doing, all you have to do is look at what they accuse Trump (and others) of doing.

  3. No one has the time to watch the hearings and the people who do have the time are doing something constructive with it. The DNC media knows this and just like every single thing they say about the Trump administration, when a person looks at actual source material for themselves, they discover the media are not telling the truth. But most people don’t critically consume media and even the ones who do, already have their perceptions altered by the deception.

    The longer this goes on, the more they cement their honor of being the most corrupt era of journalism in our country’s history.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *