Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sondland directly testified the President told him to "talk to Rudy." Rudy instructed Sondland, Volker that Burisma had to be included in the Zelensky announcement to obtain the WH meeting. Trump himself asked Zelensky for an investigation.
What Sondland cannot do is Trump to the military aid, saying that it was his clear presumption based on a series of events. For that portion of the quid pro quo Giuliani and Mulvaney well be required.
So where is the disconnect?
Not quite.
" talk to Rudy" means, just that " talk to Rudy"
If he said" talk to Rudy about Ukraine" " Talk to Rudy about the Bidens" etc. then it is important.
You only know what Rudy " instructed " by what you are being told. Rudy hasn't been asked. You have no knowledge of anything Trump may have said to Rudy.None. Zero. Either does Sondland unless he heard it directly from Trump.
I believe Sondland said it was a " guess". So POTUS should be Impeached about a guess?
Trump DID NOT ask for an Investigation. The exact words were " look into " .
The least you can do is quote it correctly.
I keep saying.
The Aid was given.
There wasn't any investigation.
Not one witness can say that Trump directly told them to participate in a bribe or any other criminal activity.
The " victim" in this situation says he wasn't a victim.
If he said" talk to Rudy about Ukraine" " Talk to Rudy about the Bidens" etc. then it is important.
You only know what Rudy " instructed " by what you are being told. Rudy hasn't been asked. You have no knowledge of anything Trump may have said to Rudy.None. Zero. Either does Sondland unless he heard it directly from Trump.
This sounds far more like clinging to the last shred of plausible deniability than it does a compelling case to make to the American people.
This sounds far more like clinging to the last shred of plausible deniability than it does a compelling case to make to the American people.
I'm not making a case to the American people. I am just looking at it as I see it. And I don't see enough here. Not at all. Like I have said over and over again. There isn't any exemplar for conversations between World Leaders. It is a universe very few know about, and even less have any experience.
I am also looking at the behavior pattern of Democrats over the past few years.
Avon Barksdale would never have been so stupid to rely on a fool like Rudy Giuliani.
You do have a point there.
Stringer Bell was a far better choice.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
