Trump/Ukraine v15: +++WOW+++Donald Trump Bribery Scandal Intensifies

Status
Not open for further replies.
Okay...let me try again :




<bball2>

So because of that, the Dems are now reduced to : "uh..umm...oh..uh...yeah? well uh...you BRIBED HIM! THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED! YOU BRIBED HIM...so...uhh..THERE!" {<jordan}


If Trump did tie the aid to the investigations, explicitly, what then would the case be?

I’m confused about how this ends the game?


We have a crystal clear picture of a president who tried to force a country to publicly announce investigations into unfounded crimes — against the advice of his advisors, against the moral concerns of his advisors — that would benefit him politically. The details reveal the intent. The details implicate him directly.

None of that depends, in any way, on the explicit link between the aid and the investigations.
 
they live in this weird twitter world. It’s all nonsense.

this is the bogus mueller thread. Part 2.

They will create some part 3 to hyperventilate about later on. And on and on and on.

i guess that’s all they’re left with at this point

desperate men do desperate things
 
Here is the full article.

Have a read as I think it better explains what is happening : https://www.foxnews.com/politics/mark-meadows-impeachment-hearing-produced-this-real-bombshell

I don't feel like posting it here.

From the article
"SONDLAND IMPLICATES TOP OFFICIALS ON UKRAINE, BUT SAYS HE 'NEVER HEARD' QUID PRO QUO FROM TRUMP"

"So no one told you," Turner pressed on. "Not just the president. Giuliani didn't tell you, Mulvaney didn't tell you. Nobody. Pompeo didn't tell you. Nobody else on this planet told you that Donald Trump was tying aid to these investigations. Is that correct?"

The congressman cut Sondland off, restating his point: "No one on this planet told you that Donald Trump was tying this aid to the investigations, because if your answer is yes, then the chairman is wrong and the headline on CNN is wrong. No one on this planet told you that President Trump was tying aid to investigations. Yes or no?"

"Yes," Sondland replied.

"So, you really have no testimony today that ties President Trump to a scheme to withhold aid from Ukraine in exchange for these investigations?" Turner asked.

"Other than my own presumption," Sondland said."


I've seen clips of this, but was there anything else that justifies the narrative that his testimony was a "bombshell, IED, smoking gun" etc...?
 
From the article
"SONDLAND IMPLICATES TOP OFFICIALS ON UKRAINE, BUT SAYS HE 'NEVER HEARD' QUID PRO QUO FROM TRUMP"

"So no one told you," Turner pressed on. "Not just the president. Giuliani didn't tell you, Mulvaney didn't tell you. Nobody. Pompeo didn't tell you. Nobody else on this planet told you that Donald Trump was tying aid to these investigations. Is that correct?"

The congressman cut Sondland off, restating his point: "No one on this planet told you that Donald Trump was tying this aid to the investigations, because if your answer is yes, then the chairman is wrong and the headline on CNN is wrong. No one on this planet told you that President Trump was tying aid to investigations. Yes or no?"

"Yes," Sondland replied.

"So, you really have no testimony today that ties President Trump to a scheme to withhold aid from Ukraine in exchange for these investigations?" Turner asked.

"Other than my own presumption," Sondland said."


I've seen clips of this, but was there anything else that justifies the narrative that his testimony was a "bombshell, IED, smoking gun" etc...?

What else do you want? He was the key witness.

I put up the source article.

If you still think Sondland has credibility, I don't know what else to tell you man. {<shrug}
 
What else do you want? He was the key witness.

I put up the source article.

If you still think Sondland has credibility, I don't know what else to tell you man. {<shrug}
I'm just confused as to why his testimony is being touted as such a bombshell of evidence. If he's the key witness, and that's all he had to offer (his presumption) then he has nothing.

I have no doubt that Giuliani was all over someone in Ukraine to pressure them into investigating Biden, in return for something with Trump, but I have no proof of that, and I've yet to see it produced.
 
Okay...let me try again :




<bball2>

So because of that, the Dems are now reduced to : "uh..umm...oh..uh...yeah? well uh...you BRIBED HIM! THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED! YOU BRIBED HIM...so...uhh..THERE!" {<jordan}


there it is.

that will shut people up.
 
I'm just confused as to why his testimony is being touted as such a bombshell of evidence. If he's the key witness, and that's all he had to offer (his presumption) then he has nothing.

I have no doubt that Giuliani was all over someone in Ukraine to pressure them into investigating Biden, in return for something with Trump, but I have no proof of that, and I've yet to see it produced.

Look, all I know is that the QPQ garbage was proven to be just that : GARBAGE. (with Sondland's admission)

And the Dems then switched it to Bribery / Extortion 'cause they have nothing left to throw at Trump.

Mind you, they were going to impeach no matter what so it makes no difference at this point but still....
 
Look, all I know is that the QPQ garbage was proven to be just that : GARBAGE. (with Sondland's admission)

And the Dems then switched it to Bribery / Extortion 'cause they have nothing left to throw at Trump.

Mind you, they were going to impeach no matter what so it makes no difference at this point but still....
I think the tactic all along in this impeachment thing was to Muddy Trump as much possible coming into the elections, and nothing more. Their candidates are weak, and need all the help they can get. I think it's going to backfire though, especially considering the Russian waste of time.
 
I don't contribute a whole hell of a lot around here, but I remember his Homer Thompson account. The dude let this place totally consume him. He was even e-mailing Crave (The company that owns the website) to try and get posters and I think even a mod or two banned.

I checked his post history one day, because I was curious to see how often he was posting and he had a post every 5 or 10 minuets (or less) from like 8:00am until 2:00am every day for the month I went back on. Even through the weekends and the 4rth of July. That shit can't be healthy.

It's very unhealthy to be so consumed by another person on the internet that you go back and look at their posting history so extensively. That's borderline stalkerish behavior and you should see a psychiatrist about that. Just quick math let's me know that you went through at least 3,240 posts of his.....weird as fuck.
 
Sondland under oath:

https://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000016e-88f1-d93d-ad6f-8ef3ea120000
I testified previously, Mr. Giuliani’s requests were a quid pro quo for arranging a White House visit for President Zelensky. Mr. Giuliani demanded that Ukraine make a public statement announcing investigations of the 2016 election/DNC server and Burisma. Mr. Giuliani was expressing the desires of the President of the United States, and we knew that these investigations were important to the President.

 
Sondland under oath:

https://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000016e-88f1-d93d-ad6f-8ef3ea120000
I testified previously, Mr. Giuliani’s requests were a quid pro quo for arranging a White House visit for President Zelensky. Mr. Giuliani demanded that Ukraine make a public statement announcing investigations of the 2016 election/DNC server and Burisma. Mr. Giuliani was expressing the desires of the President of the United States, and we knew that these investigations were important to the President.

Nah, that lady from the House BTFO the dem state narrative.
 
Look, all I know is that the QPQ garbage was proven to be just that : GARBAGE. (with Sondland's admission)

And the Dems then switched it to Bribery / Extortion 'cause they have nothing left to throw at Trump.

Mind you, they were going to impeach no matter what so it makes no difference at this point but still....

You do realize that QPQ, Bribery, and extortion are all describing the same acts?
 
You do realize that QPQ, Bribery, and extortion are all describing the same acts?

Bribery tends to focus on government, whereas extortion can be done by an individual for that individual's gain. So having them as separate charges is important, in fact.
 
You do realize that QPQ, Bribery, and extortion are all describing the same acts?
Quid pro quo is common and common sense as we are (of course) supposed to use aid to get things we want politically. Sondland said that like he figured everybody knew. QPQ needs to stop being used as a negative because we always need to get political favors back for giving away our money.

The possible big difference here is Trump had policy that didn't 100% go along with the fail fkn establishment we voted against in 2016.
 
Quid pro quo is common and common sense as we are (of course) supposed to use aid to get things we want politically. Sondland said that like he figured everybody knew. QPQ needs to stop being used as a negative because we always need to get political favors back for giving away our money.

The possible big difference here is Trump had policy that didn't 100% go along with the fail fkn establishment we voted against in 2016.
You mean the big difference is that the quo Trump wanted were personal benefits to him and not benefits to the United States.

Still waiting on you to explain why Trump wanted that Crowdstrike server
 
I lost count. Is this the 27th "This is it!"?

Help me out here.
 
All this shenanigans are just Nancy's plan to derail Bernie and Warren. Fuck that witch.
 
You mean the big difference is that the quo Trump wanted were personal benefits to him and not benefits to the United States.

Still waiting on you to explain why Trump wanted that Crowdstrike server
Well I'm "the United States" as much as unelected bureaucrats and I want to know why a Vice Presidents son would get rich off a corrupt entity tied to a foreign entity at the worst time possible.. While the son brags about having the job because of his fathers office, and the father (VP) brags about withholding aid to force an action that could (and would) benefit his son monetarily. See, there is American interests in investigating wrong-doing by White House officials, or what the hell is the left doing? So I disagree with your first part. I think a lot of Americans are interested in what Trump wanted investigated, so therefore whether it was just to benefit him in is question.

I don't know enough about the "crowd-strike servers" to have a serious conversation about them right now. If you want to tell me what you think the wrong doing is I'll listen.
 
Last edited:
Well I'm "the United States" as much as unelected bureaucrats and I want to know why a Vice Presidents son would get rich off a corrupt entity tied to a foreign entity at the worst time possible.. While the son brags about having the job because of his fathers office, and the father (VP) brags about withholding aid to force an action that could (and would) benefit his son monetarily. See, there is American interests in investigating wrong-doing by White House officials, or what the hell is the left doing? So I disagree with your first part. I think a lot of Americans are interested in what Trump wanted investigated, so therefore whether it was just to benefit him in is question,

I don't know enough about the "crowd-strike servers" to have a serious conversation about them right now. If you want to tell me what you think the wrong doing is I'll listen.

The question is why wouldn't he get rich by any legal means he could? Should he stop a lucrative opportunity to provide for his family simply because the optics don't look good for his father? Where did the son ever brag about getting the job because of his father? Biden requested the firing of a man that was seen as corrupt, the US State Department had that stance, UK had that stance, and Ukraine's own parliament had that stance as more than 2/3 of them had already voted for his firing prior to Biden's declaration that he be fired. So disagree all you want, you know this was for Trump's personal benefit.

Crowdstrike is the company that the DNC hired when their emails and data were breeched, crowdstrike was able to make a backup copy of that data and move it to their servers. The FBI never got to review the original servers and utilized a backup image and traffic logs from Crowdstrike to make the determination that Russians hacked the DNC server back in 2016. Conspiracy theorists on the right have advanced a theory that there are thousands of missing DNC emails on that server and it's located in Ukraine because the founder of Crowdstrike was a Ukranian (he wasn't). Also tied to that theory is that it was Ukranians behind the hack of the DNC server and they framed Russia for that.

If you watched the Impeachment Hearing yesterday you would have heard Devin Nunes spouting off some of those debunked conspiracy theories...dude really should have shut up and let the counsel do the talking.
 
The question is why wouldn't he get rich by any legal means he could? Should he stop a lucrative opportunity to provide for his family simply because the optics don't look good for his father? Where did the son ever brag about getting the job because of his father? Biden requested the firing of a man that was seen as corrupt, the US State Department had that stance, UK had that stance, and Ukraine's own parliament had that stance as more than 2/3 of them had already voted for his firing prior to Biden's declaration that he be fired. So disagree all you want, you know this was for Trump's personal benefit.

Crowdstrike is the company that the DNC hired when their emails and data were breeched, crowdstrike was able to make a backup copy of that data and move it to their servers. The FBI never got to review the original servers and utilized a backup image and traffic logs from Crowdstrike to make the determination that Russians hacked the DNC server back in 2016. Conspiracy theorists on the right have advanced a theory that there are thousands of missing DNC emails on that server and it's located in Ukraine because the founder of Crowdstrike was a Ukranian (he wasn't). Also tied to that theory is that it was Ukranians behind the hack of the DNC server and they framed Russia for that.

If you watched the Impeachment Hearing yesterday you would have heard Devin Nunes spouting off some of those debunked conspiracy theories...dude really should have shut up and let the counsel do the talking.
I just can't shut off the common sense that saw Joe Biden bragging about withholding aid (which actually happens all the time) and doing exactly what Dems are accusing Trump of, but the dems saying Trump can't demand he be investigated, or even throw it out casually in an nonthreatening phone call with somebody in a position to do it.

I am not interested at this time in the crowd-strike servers. I do think Trump has a certain level of authority as the elected President, and that a complete undermining of it is unnecessary. I keep hearing leftists around here reading the same script that has the word "debunked" in it and on a couple occasions I'm pretty sure it was used incorrectly. About this issue I'm not sure.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top