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: "I never heard, Mr. Goldman, anyone say that the investigations had to start or had to be completed. The only thing I heard from Mr. Giuliani or otherwise was that they had to be announced in some form, and that form kept changing."
Sen. Goldman: "Announced publicly?"
Sondland: "Announced publicly."
That's Giuliani. What's his evidence on Trump?
Quote:
Yes, and then the Department of Justice released a statement that they had absolutely no knowledge or involvement with investigating the Bidens or anything to do with Ukraine. I quoted it above.
Hmmm... Durham is investigating Ukraine involvement.
1) Sondland testified under oath that Trump was seeking the public announcement of an investigation into the Bidens and that the investigation or particular outcome thereof was not being demanded. If Trump was actually seeking a legitimate investigation into possible corruption by Joe Biden, then a mere announcement would be insufficient to achieve that goal.
2) If it were true that Trump genuinely believed that Joe Biden had used his power and influence as VP to enrich Hunter Biden, then the appropriate authority to alert was the United States Department of Justice, not the President of Ukraine.
3) If it were true that Trump had a genuinely concern that Joe Biden abused his power in 2014 (rather than have an interest in smearing Joe Biden with the announcement of an investigation), why did Trump wait until for two years into his Presidency to do anything about it You think it was just a funny coincidence that it was immediately after Joe Biden announced his candidacy that Trump suddenly leaped into action?
4) Additionally, this was in no way, shape, or form "our DOJ in search for possible criminal behavior". The Department of Justice has already expressly stated that they were not at all involved in the investigation into Biden. On or about Sept. 25, 2019 they released a statement that the DoJ had no involvement or knowledge "about having Ukraine investigate anything relating to former Vice President Biden or his son" and that "Mr. Barr has not spoken with Mr. Giuliani about the president’s phone call or anything relating to Ukraine". The DoJ was not involved at all.
I make no excuses for Hunter Biden - who certainly appears to have been profiteering off his last name. But however unseemly that may be, it is not illegal nor does it absolve Trump.
Barr & Durham have been to the Ukraine, right after they went to Italy, to find out how Mifsud got involved.
But Trump never once mentioned "eliminating corruption". Never once.
Yes he did. Trump was asking Zelensky to investigate the corruption that took place with meddling going on in the 2016 election. Then he cautioned Zelensky that he was still surrounded by many of the same people from the previous administration which everyone says was corrupt.
The President: "I would like you to do us a favor though, because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike... I guess you have one of your wealthy people... The server, they say Ukraine has it.
There were a lot of things that went on, the whole situation.. I think you are surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it.
As you saw yesterday, that whole nonsense ended with a very poor performance by a man named Robert Mueller, an incompetent performance, but they say a lot of it started with Ukraine. Whatever you can do, it's very important that you do it, if that's possible."
Quote:
Originally Posted by TEPLimey
He mentioned, specifically, "the Bidens" and told everyone to get Zelensky to investigate "Burisma" which everyone agrees meant investigate "the Bidens". There is literally zero evidence to support the premise that he sought "to have Ukrainians prove their commitment to eliminating the corruption their country". According to everyone involved, his interest was singularly aimed at "the Bidens" and Crowdstrike.
Remember, Trump asked for "a favor," as in singular. He did not ask for "favors." Looking into 2016 election interference was that favor.
Foreign interference in the 2016 election was corruption. Blackmailing Ukraine to fire that prosecutor who says he was investigating Hunter, does look like corruption.
Biden did indeed blackmail Ukraine with a quid pro quo, to "fire the prosecutor investigating my son, or you don't get the aid." It does not get much more personal then a father protecting his son from a criminal investigation.
And, gee, whose personal attorney is Giuliani? Who directed Sondlond to take direction from Giuliani? At whose behest was Giuliani acting? Laundering instructions through your attorney does not insulate you.
Quote:
Hmmm... Durham is investigating Ukraine involvement.
You have the statement from the DoJ. You can speculate all you want about Durham investigating the Bidens' activity in 2014. There is no evidence to support such a claim.
Yes he did. Trump was asking Zelensky to investigate the corruption that took place with meddling going on in the 2016 election. Then he cautioned Zelensky that he was still surrounded by many of the same people from the previous administration which everyone says was corrupt.
The President: "I would like you to do us a favor though, because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike... I guess you have one of your wealthy people... The server, they say Ukraine has it.
There were a lot. of things that went on, the: whole situation .. I think you are surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to ·get to the bottom of it. As you saw yesterday, that whole nonsense ended with a very poor performance by a man named Robert Mueller, an incompetent performance -, but they. say a lot of it started with Ukraine. Whatever you can do, it's very important that· you do it, if that's possible."
Where is the mention of "eliminating corruption" or even the word "corruption" anywhere in your selective cut-and-paste?
And, gee, whose personal attorney is Giuliani? Who directed Sondlond to take direction from Giuliani? At whose behest was Giuliani acting? Laundering instructions through your attorney does not insulate you.
WHO directly told Sondland he wanted nothing from the Ukraine? THAT'S the factual evidence.
1) Sondland testified under oath that Trump was seeking the public announcement of an investigation into the Bidens and that the investigation or particular outcome thereof was not being demanded. If Trump was actually seeking a legitimate investigation into possible corruption by Joe Biden, then a mere announcement would be insufficient to achieve that goal.
2) If it were true that Trump genuinely believed that Joe Biden had used his power and influence as VP to enrich Hunter Biden, then the appropriate authority to alert was the United States Department of Justice, not the President of Ukraine.
3) If it were true that Trump had a genuinely concern that Joe Biden abused his power in 2014 (rather than have an interest in smearing Joe Biden with the announcement of an investigation), why did Trump wait until for two years into his Presidency to do anything about it You think it was just a funny coincidence that it was immediately after Joe Biden announced his candidacy that Trump suddenly leaped into action?
It was probably related to the conclusion of the Mueller investigation, which meant that truth-seeking in Ukraine couldn't be spun into obstruction.
Okay, cite this evidence, because so far there has not been anything suggesting what you claim
Giuliani did not engage in some inappropriate, or nefarious end around anyone. Every president has asked trusted friends and associates to help them with various tasks.
So the dems are going to add RICO crimes to their three year long list of failed attempts to make an impeachable offense stick to Trump?
You cannot be serious. Could you please give some examples of "every president has asked trusted friends and associates" (who are not government employees or have security clearance) to help them shake down a foreign government, while also stuffing their own pockets? Then there are the indicted "friends and associates" Igor and Lev--which president other than Nixon were associated with guys like that? Most presidents use experienced and qualified people to "help" them.
Giuliani did not engage in some inappropriate, or nefarious end around anyone.
A private citizen without a security clearance cannot act on behalf of the U.S. government in foreign affairs. So, yes, it is completely inappropriate for Trump to send his personal lawyers in lieu of the State Department.
Giuliani was given $500,000 by Lev Parnas, who is under house arrest for illegal campaign contributions, and who worked with Giuliani on the Ukraine scandal. You don't think this seems to be at least a little bit nefarious?
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.
