Mr. Castor: (01:08:42)
I want to turn back to your opener on page five under, when you talk about in the absence of any credible explanation for the suspension of aid, I later came to believe that the resumption of security aid would not occur until there was a public statement from Ukraine committing to the investigations, correct?

Gordon Sondland: (01:09:05)
Correct.

Mr. Castor: (01:09:06)
And you acknowledge that this is speculation, right?

Gordon Sondland: (01:09:11)
It was a presumption.

...

John Ratcliffe: 00:34:43 All right. Why that’s important Ambassador Sondland, is because none of that is hearsay. None of that is speculation. None of that is opinion. That is direct evidence and ultimately that is what if this proceeds to the Senate they’re going to care about. Unlike this proceeding, which has been based on largely speculation and presumption and opinion. This is direct testimony and direct evidence.

John Ratcliffe: 00:35:08 And to that point, none of that included evidence about the Bidens and none of that included evidence about military assistance because President Trump never mentioned either of those to you, correct?

Gordon Sondland: 00:35:18 That’s correct.

...

Rep Mike Turner: 00:57:05 No. Answer the question. Is it correct? 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’s 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?

Gordon Sondland: 00:57:23 Yes.

Rep Mike Turner: 00:57:24 So you really have no testimony today that ties President Trump to a scheme to withhold aid from Ukraine in exchange for these investigations.

Gordon Sondland: 00:57:36 Other than my own presumption.


https://www.rev.com/blog/impeachment-hearing-day-4-transcript-gordon-sondland-testifies

So yes, it is safe to say these career officials are idiots and are falling for bad reporting. That the others share the same fantasies makes it all the more a obvious that this is anti-Trump hysteria at best, a coverup of corruption at worst. — NOS4A2

Zeldin: What was the goal of requesting investigations into 2016 election and Burisma?

Taylor: As I understand it from one of the maybe the article in the New York Times about Mr. Giuliani’s interest in Burisma, in that article, he describes, and I think he quotes Giuliani at some length, that article indicates that Giuliani was interested in getting some information on Vice President Biden that would be useful to Mr.Giuliani’s client. I think that’s what he says. He says he’s got one client, and he’s useful to the client.

Zeldin: And then it’s your inference that Mr. Giuliani’s goal would be the President’s goal?

Taylor: Yes.

Zeldin: And your source is the New York Times?

Taylor: Yes.

Zeldin: So do you have any other source that the President’s goal in making this request was anything other than the New York Times?

Taylor: I have not talked to the president. I have no other information from what the President was thinking

The fantasies here are your time lines. Did you forget about the whistleblower and the released transcript of the white house call? Do Me a favour, not us a favour. ME.

Stop trying to make it look like some big conspiracy against the president. He is the conspiracy.

Stop disrespecting me by ignoring my arguments. If you can't think of a counter then just admit you shouldn't be supporting Donald Trump. Man up and know when to have the dignity and character to admit you're wrong.

I mean just look at how divided everyone is? How can a man claim to be a good leader when his wards are fighting amongst themselves constantly and over 50% of the voting public wants him gone? What about the fact when he leaves office in either 2020 or 2024 his own company and brand will have been enriched while the USA will be left with a massive deficit in the trillions?

Seriously why are you ignoring me? Do I leave you speechless? Wonder why.

Some of today's highlights from the real media:

This is one of the great successes (if that word can be used in this way) of the Trump presidency: He has succeeded in eroding truth and bending reality among those who support him. He has succeeded in commandeering conservatism and twisting it into something nearly unrecognizable.
And now, all of Trump’s supporters and defenders are erecting a protective hedge around him. The cult of Trumpism can’t be allowed to fall.

They are devoted to Trump’s version of the truth and his version of reality. In it, he is a tough-talking tough guy who uses colorful language and sharp elbows to change things in their interest and in their favor. In this reality, he is unfairly and incessantly maligned by those obsessed with hating him as a person and for his supposed successes. In this reality, Trump is being bullied.

Also, nothing said about him is to be believed, no matter who says it and how much proof is presented. Conversely, believing him, a compulsive liar, happens by default. — Charles M. Blow

There are two very big lies that Donald Trump and his sycophants have used, through aggressive, bombastic repetition, to shape the public debate about impeachment, and about Trump’s legitimacy more broadly.

The first big lie is that “the people” elected Trump, and that the constitutional provision of impeachment would invalidate their choice. In fact, Trump is president only because a constitutional provision invalidated the choice of the American people. Trump lost the popular vote and might have lost the Electoral College without Russian interference, and yet many Democrats and pundits have been bullied into accepting the fiction that he has democratic, and not just constitutional, legitimacy.

The second big lie is that Russia didn’t help elect Trump, and that the president has been absolved of collusion. It’s true that the report by Robert Mueller, the former special counsel, did not find enough evidence to prove a criminal conspiracy between Trump’s campaign and Russian state actors. But the Mueller report found abundant evidence that the campaign sought Russian help, benefited from that help and obstructed the F.B.I. investigation into Russian actions. His investigation resulted in felony convictions for Trump’s former campaign chairman, deputy campaign chairman, personal lawyer, first national security adviser, and longtime political adviser, among others.

Had public life in America not been completely deformed by blizzards of official lies, right-wing propaganda and the immovable wall of Republican bad faith, the Mueller report would have ended Trump’s minoritarian presidency. — Michelle Goldberg

Trump has been making deals for half a century so I suspect you have little clue what you’re talking about. — NOS4A2

The Trump deal. Take the money. Let the company go bankrupt. Creditors don't get paid because the money's been taken.

New transcript from Mark Sandy’s deposition in Schiff’s star chamber. Key take-away is the hold was put on the Ukraine aid because of the “the President's concern about other countries not contributing more to Ukraine”.

https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/sandy_final_redacted.pdf

It says that the aid was put on hold in July and that at that time nobody (including Duffy) knew the reason why. Then in early September they were asked about what other countries were contributing to Ukraine, and then an email (from Duffy) saying that “the President's concern about other countries not contributing more to Ukraine” was the reason why.

Given the fact that the White House was made aware of the whistle-blower's complaints in August, and that in August there were "extensive efforts to generate an after-the-fact justification for the decision and a debate over whether the delay was legal", Sandy's deposition would seem to reaffirm that point I've made before that this is all an attempt at damage control.

Couple all this with the memo on the Trump-Zelensky call, the previous reporting that Trump met with Giuliani, Parnas, and Fruman, asking them to ask Ukraine to investigate Biden, Giuliani admitting to asking Ukraine to investigate Biden, and the multiple testimonies from the people involved that it was common knowledge that the aid was conditioned on an investigation of Biden, it's pretty clear what's really going on.

Key take-away is the hold was put on the Ukraine aid because of the “the President's concern... — NOS4A2

Says it all.

It was the reason why, as evidenced by the transcript, Trump’s own statements, Mick Mulvaney, and now the OMB (I wonder why Sandy wasn’t called to publicly testify). Actually, recently reviewed emails dispute your point, detailing that the after-the-fact-justification was concerned about complying with the congressional Budget and Impoundment Act, not covering up the president’s alleged crimes.

Given that he withholds aid to other countries—most recently Lebanon, or previously Honduras and Guatemala—it seems clear this is a matter of policy, not criminality nor conspiracy. Given that the whistleblower is a registered Democrat, cited the New York Times as evidence of Trump’s motives, this appears to be a conspiracy theory of the highest order.

Actually, recently reviewed emails dispute your point, detailing that the after-the-fact-justification was concerned about complying with the congressional Budget and Impoundment Act, not covering up the president’s alleged crimes. — NOS4A2

In the early August email exchanges, Mulvaney asked acting OMB director Russell Vought for an update on the legal rationale for withholding the aid and how much longer it could be delayed. Trump had made the decision the prior month without an assessment of the reasoning or legal justification, according to two White House officials.

...

Also included in the review are email communications between OMB and State Department officials and others discussing why the White House was holding up nearly $400 million in military aid and whether the hold might violate the law, one person said. — Washington Post

People familiar with the Office of Management and Budget’s handling of the holdup in aid acknowledged the internal discussions going on during August, but characterized the conversations as calm, routine and focused on the legal question of how to comply with the congressional Budget and Impoundment Act, which requires the executive branch to spend congressionally appropriated funds unless Congress agrees they can be rescinded.

“There was a legal consensus at every step of the way that the money could be withheld to conduct the policy review,” said OMB spokeswoman Rachel K. Semmel. “OMB works closely with agencies on executing the budget. Routine practices and procedures were followed, not scrambling.”

...

In December 2018, months before the Ukraine issue surfaced as a top priority for the president, the Government Accountability Office had warned the OMB it was not following the law in how it chose to disburse and withhold congressionally approved funds.

cowardice is not a virtue I think.

Answer the question about obstruction; If Trump has done nothing wrong why the obstruction?

Also answer why in your mind a good leader is someone who causes massive amounts of civil unrest and massive budget deficits?

Why does Trump break informal protocol with all other past Presidents by not releasing his tax records?

Why is his administration trying to undermine the legislative branches constitutional mandate to perform checks and balances on the executive branch? Why is he talking about civil war?

Do you seriously read every transcript looking for one or two lines that you can take out of context every time that supports your dogmatic fixation with Hitler and Stalin's love child?

What about the times the president has directly told his supporters to "Punch" people in the face and all of the white nationalist rhetoric he puts up on Twitter? What about Stephen Miller's emails? How can you ignore the historical similarities with past dictatorships?

Your stances I feel beg the question; are you a monarchist and were you one before Trump ever hinted that he was going to run for office one day?

Answer the question about obstruction; If Trump has done nothing wrong why the obstruction?

What obstruction?

Also answer why in your mind a good leader is someone who causes massive amounts of civil unrest and massive budget deficits?

What civil unrest?

Deficits aren’t necessarily a bad thing, especially when a country is working on domestic production.

Why does Trump break informal protocol with all other past Presidents by not releasing his tax records?

His tax records are none of our business.

Why is his administration trying to undermine the legislative branches constitutional mandate to perform checks and balances on the executive branch? Why is he talking about civil war?

He isn’t.

Do you seriously read every transcript looking for one or two lines that you can take out of context every time that supports your dogmatic fixation with Hitler and Stalin's love child?

Nope.

What about the times the president has directly told his supporters to "Punch" people in the face and all of the white nationalist rhetoric he puts up on Twitter? What about Stephen Miller's emails? How can you ignore the historical similarities with past dictatorships?

Fake news.

Your stances I feel beg the question; are you a monarchist and were you one before Trump ever hinted that he was going to run for office one day?

No.

Most of your responses are just outright untrue and lacking in any evidence and completely contrary to what is really going on in this country.

Where are you from in the USA and what is your socioeconomic background?

You do realise you have just lied to an entire community about the state of affairs in the USA right? We can verify everything you are saying and if your best defense is to just bury your head up the presidents ass and take a direct dose of his BS then you are already lost. Whatever you do, don't listen when Trump demands you to take up arms and kill your evil dem neighbour because the neighbour will defend himself or will be avenged by the majority. So seriously, don't do it. My advice once this is all over and the manchild is out of office is to forget and don't ever let anyone know you were once a supporter of Hitler 2.0 and give up fantasies about perfect incorruptible people worth following into a personality cult.

You do realise you have just lied to an entire community about the state of affairs in the USA right? We can verify everything you are saying and if your best defense is to just bury your head up the presidents ass and take a direct dose of his BS then you are already lost.

I haven’t lied about anything. You did. Why won’t you verify any of your allegations?

Where are you from in the USA — Mark Dennis

He's not from the U.S. But wherever he's from, he's doing a great job of discrediting White House spin by presenting it here in a form so easily refuted. Maybe he's a closet never-Trumper.

have you not been paying attention to anything anyone on this thread has been sharing or do you just pretend not to see all the links?

I asked you the questions first so don't deflect. Answer them directly and stop throwing up defenses so transparent that caspar the friendly ghost can't even see them. We have all spent countless hours providing you with well thought out counter arguments to your claims and you've backed down and moved the goalposts on each and every one.

Unless you are suggesting that your memory of this thread is similar to that of a metaphorical goldfish and you are too lazy to simply review the thread and what you yourself have said and others responses to you? That would explain why you keep reverting back to your staple "Where is the evidence?" Argument five minutes after someone has shown you the evidence.

Whistleblower conversation. Now please.

If you cannot counter or engage me respectfully then I suggest to everyone here to just ignore everything you say from now on as you cannot even respect us enough to respond with the equal effort we are trying to give to your lousy responses.

He's not from the U.S. But wherever he's from, he's doing a great job of discrediting White House spin by presenting it here in a form so easily refuted. Maybe he's a closet never-Trumper. — Baden

I thought as much. I might not be from the USA but at least I actually live here and my fiance is American so I know enough to make reasonable observations on the issue.

Is he from Russia by chance? Haha

I did answer the questions. Perhaps you missed my post above.

Engage you respectfully? Have I attacked you as a person? Have I questioned your motives or pretended you’re a Russian? Have I called you names? Why should I respect someone who isn’t quite deserving of it?

The only one not resorting to fallacy, ridicule and insult, and as such the only one deserving of respect and consideration is Michael.

You have disrespected me by not responding to me many times. I have spent a lot of time in responses to you which have yet been unanswered whereas all your claims have been debunked by myself and many others.

You're still not answering questions. I've shared reasonable suspicions and given arguments to back them up whereas as you seem to be practing the 5 D's of Dogdeball. Dodge, Duck, Dip, Dive and Dodge. That's all you ever do with us so you'll just have to forgive us if we all get a little frustrated with your gaslighting nonsense.

Everyone here knows that usually the lack of a response is usually because the other party doesnt have one. I've never once turned down the option to answer if I think I have a good countsr so why are you withholding on us if you have arguments that haven't already been refuted? Don't pull your punches now.

You have disrespected me by not responding to me many times. I have spent a lot of time in responses to you which have yet been unanswered whereas all your claims have been debunked by myself and many others.

You're still not answering questions. I've shared reasonable suspicions and given arguments to back them up whereas as you seem to be practing the 5 D's of Dogdeball. Dodge, Duck, Dip, Dive and Dodge. That's all you ever do with us so you'll just have to forgive us if we all get a little frustrated with your gaslighting nonsense.

Everyone here knows that usually the lack of a response is usually because the other party doesnt have one. I've never once turned down the option to answer if I think I have a good countsr so why are you withholding on us if you have arguments that haven't already been refuted? Don't pull your punches now.

I'm fully willing to debate the topic if you ever want to. But yes your irrelevant tirades against me are a complete waste of time.

So which question would you like me to address?

You know full well which questions I'd like you to address unless you have disrespected me further by not having the sense to read my previous messages. It would seem what I said about your memory wasn't innacurate as again here you are asking me to repeat myself.

This is just lazy and effortless responses and I'm not playing your game with you anymore. You are not a philosopher you are a political ideologue and follower of a demagogue. I feel sorry for you really but I'm not wasting anymore of my time on this. I am not going in circles with you asking me to rewrite everything again, I can see what you are doing. Goodbye Russian Asset; willingly or unwillingly whichever it may be.

There was a legal consensus at every step of the way that the money could be withheld to conduct the policy review,” said OMB spokeswoman Rachel K. Semmel. “OMB works closely with agencies on executing the budget. Routine practices and procedures were followed, not scrambling. — NOS4A2

This claim appears false:

President Donald Trump says he lifted his freeze on aid to Ukraine on Sept. 11, but the State Department had quietly authorized releasing $141 million of the money several days earlier, according to five people familiar with the matter.

The State Department decision, which hasn’t been reported previously, stemmed from a legal finding made earlier in the year, and conveyed in a classified memorandum to Secretary of State Michael Pompeo. State Department lawyers found the White House Office of Management and Budget, and thus the president, had no legal standing to block spending of the Ukraine aid.

And even one of your own quotes calls the OMB's claim into question:

In December 2018, months before the Ukraine issue surfaced as a top priority for the president, the Government Accountability Office had warned the OMB it was not following the law in how it chose to disburse and withhold congressionally approved funds

So we have a good reason not to trust the OMB spokeswoman. She's either lying or has been fed false information.

As for having withheld funds from other countries, that doesn't refute the claim that Ukraine were told that their aid was conditioned on publicly announcing investigations into Burisma. I thought we'd already agreed on that, and that our disagreement was over whether or not it was actually an investigation into the Bidens that was wanted?

So we have a good reason not to trust the OMB spokeswoman.

I don't think we can trust any spokeswoman as a matter of principle, but I think that's a fair analysis.

My use of the quote regarding December 2018 was intended to show that this is something these agencies have been arguing over long before Ukraine.

Trump speaking, "Rudy who?"

This tweet coupled with Trump’s signing of the Hong Kong human rights bill could symbolize his coming fight with this generation’s Drago, the Chinese communist party.

The anthem and flag in Hong Kong. Freedom is alive.

This tweet coupled with Trump’s signing of the Hong Kong human rights bill could symbolize his coming fight with this generation’s Drago, the Chinese communist party. — NOS4A2

Drago was a fictional character hyped up full of propaganda... a fitting comparison.

Drago was a fictional character hyped up full of propaganda... a fitting comparison.

No pro-democracy protester has ever held up an Ivan Drago picture while protesting communist totalitarianism.



https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2019/11/29/hong-kong-protestors-wave-swole-trump-posters-thanksgiving-rally/

Drago was a fictional character hyped up full of propaganda... a fitting comparison.

No pro-democracy protester has ever held up an Ivan Drago picture while protesting communist totalitarianism... — NOS4A2

But there are plenty holding up the fictional character of Trump protesting the fictional tale of communist totalitarianism in China. There is no such Trump, and no such government in China.

Have you ever heard of the Communist Party of China?

Lol, yeah, pretty much. Though if Hilary tweeted that I would like her a great deal more.