Ya think? Trump Knew of Whistleblower Complaint When He Released Aid to Ukraine

Search

Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2007
Messages
22,991
Tokens
Kinda shoots down his hilarious "no quid pro quo" mantra, repeated like a brain dead parrot (or RP) on the White House lawn with a crib sheet in hand so as not to overtax said parrot brain, doesn't it?:pointer:Shush()*

A week later, the Office of Legal Counsel concluded that the administration did not have to hand over the complaint.
It is unclear how much detail the lawyers provided Trump about the complaint. The New York Times reported in September that White House advisers — namely, Cipollone and Eisenberg — knew about the whistleblower complaint in August. But the specifics of when and how Trump learned of it have not previously been reported.
The whistleblower, whose identity has not been made public, accused Trump of abusing his power by inviting a foreign power to interfere on his behalf in the 2020 election. He described the pressure campaign to get Zelenskiy to publicly commit to investigations of Democrats that could potentially benefit Trump and suggested that a temporary hold that the administration had placed on assistance to Ukraine, which is fighting a war against Russian proxy forces, might be related to the effort.
New details also emerged Tuesday about that decision to freeze the security assistance to Ukraine. An official from the White House budget office, Mark Sandy, testified that on July 12, he received an email from the office of the acting White House chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, notifying him that Trump had directed that administration officials freeze Ukraine’s military aid.
Trump had enthusiastically sought the investigations for much of the summer. But in early September, he told one of his top diplomats — Gordon Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union, who helped carry out the shadow policy toward Ukraine — that he was not seeking “a quid pro quo” with the Ukrainian government by withholding the aid.
Sondland said that when he called Trump to inquire about why the aid had been withheld, an irritated Trump insisted he was not seeking anything from the Ukrainians. But the president said that he wanted Zelenskiy “to do the right thing,” Sondland testified to Congress last week, suggesting that he was still seeking the investigations into Democrats that could help his political fortunes.
There are discrepancies about whether Sondland spoke to the president on Sept. 7 or 9. The administration lifted the freeze on aid to Ukraine on Sept. 11, as lawmakers’ demands grew. Two days earlier, three Democratic-led House committees had opened an investigation into Trump’s dealings with Ukraine.
Only days after the president learned of the whistleblower complaint, he spoke with Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., about the aid holdup. Johnson sought permission to tell Zelenskiy at an upcoming meeting in Ukraine that Trump had decided to release the security assistance, according to Johnson.
Trump replied that he was not ready, Johnson said. He said he asked later on the call whether the aid was linked to some action that the president wanted the Ukrainians to take.
“Without hesitation, President Trump immediately denied such an arrangement existed,” Johnson wrote in a letter this month to House Republicans.
Trump erupted in anger and began cursing, he wrote.
“‘No way,’” Trump said, according to Johnson. “‘I would never do that. Who told you that?’”
The White House has kept a tight hold on details about the actions of Trump and his senior aides in the Ukraine affair.
The president has refused to let top advisers testify in the impeachment inquiry, leaving a void that Republicans have exploited. They argue that the evidence that Democrats have gathered is insufficient because it contains few firsthand accounts linking the president to wrongdoing.
But Democrats have not only the transcript of Trump’s July 25 call but also the testimony of Sondland, who said Trump directed him and other top administration officials to maintain pressure on Ukraine.
Both Cipollone and Eisenberg, who briefed Trump in late August about the whistleblower complaint, had been following up on other complaints by administration officials about the Ukraine matter since early July.
Cipollone had suggested to Eisenberg in July that he tell Trump that White House staff members had raised concerns about a shadow Ukraine policy. Eisenberg, who does not typically brief Trump, never followed up on the suggestion.
This article originally appeared in The New York Times.
 

New member
Joined
Aug 28, 2012
Messages
12,457
Tokens
....that he was not seeking “a quid pro quo” with the Ukrainian government by withholding the aid.

.... He said he asked later on the call whether the aid was linked to some action that the president wanted the Ukrainians to take.
“Without hesitation, President Trump immediately denied such an arrangement existed,”

Blows it out of the water how??

Evidence?? = NONE
 

Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2007
Messages
22,991
Tokens


ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You might as well superimpose YOUR head onto a picture of Justin Verlander's body in the sex tape of him and Kate Upton-it'd be just as realistic as the above-and you'd probably jack off on that picture just as often as you do to that "retouched" photo of that McDonald's scarfing pig.
 

Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2007
Messages
22,991
Tokens
....that he was not seeking “a quid pro quo” with the Ukrainian government by withholding the aid.

.... He said he asked later on the call whether the aid was linked to some action that the president wanted the Ukrainians to take.
“Without hesitation, President Trump immediately denied such an arrangement existed,”

Blows it out of the water how??

Evidence?? = NONE

Sorry, Blubber Runt, sworn testimony by even ONE person, even one as sketch as Sondland, beats NON sworn bullshit spouted by a guy proven to have lied THOUSANDS of times over the past few years, let alone, sworn testimony by a half dozen or so people. Try again, Obsessive Douche.
 

New member
Joined
Aug 28, 2012
Messages
12,457
Tokens
Sorry, Blubber Runt, sworn testimony by even ONE person, even one as sketch as Sondland, beats NON sworn bullshit spouted by a guy proven to have lied THOUSANDS of times over the past few years, let alone, sworn testimony by a half dozen or so people. Try again, Obsessive Douche.

Sondlands testimony:

Turner: “Okay. Well, you know, after you testified, Chairman Schiff ran out and gave a press conference and said he gets to impeach the president of the United States because of your testimony, and if you pull up CNN today right now their banner says: Sondland Ties Trump to Withholding Aid. Is that your testimony today, Ambassador Sondland, that you have evidence that Donald Trump tied the investigation to the aid, because I don’t think you’re saying that?”

Sondland: “I’ve said repeatedly, congressman, I was presuming. I also said that President Trump never—“

Turner: “So, no one told you. 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?”

Sondland: “I think I already testified to that.”

Turner: “No answer the question: Is it correct? No one on this planet told you that Donald Trump was tying this aid to the investigation? 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?”

Sondland: “Yes.”

Turner: “So, you really have no testimony that ties President Trump to a scheme to withhold aid from Ukraine in exchange for these investigations?”

Sondland: “Other than my own presumption.”

***So.... When does making a statement carry more weight than testifying under oath and questioning?***
 

Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2007
Messages
22,991
Tokens
Sondlands testimony:

Turner: “Okay. Well, you know, after you testified, Chairman Schiff ran out and gave a press conference and said he gets to impeach the president of the United States because of your testimony, and if you pull up CNN today right now their banner says: Sondland Ties Trump to Withholding Aid. Is that your testimony today, Ambassador Sondland, that you have evidence that Donald Trump tied the investigation to the aid, because I don’t think you’re saying that?”

Sondland: “I’ve said repeatedly, congressman, I was presuming. I also said that President Trump never—“

Turner: “So, no one told you. 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?”

Sondland: “I think I already testified to that.”

Turner: “No answer the question: Is it correct? No one on this planet told you that Donald Trump was tying this aid to the investigation? 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?”

Sondland: “Yes.”

Turner: “So, you really have no testimony that ties President Trump to a scheme to withhold aid from Ukraine in exchange for these investigations?”

Sondland: “Other than my own presumption.”

***So.... When does making a statement carry more weight than testifying under oath and questioning?***

What does ANY of the above have to do with Sondland's following statement?

"I know that members of this committee have frequently framed these complicated issues in the form of a simple question: Was there a 'quid pro quo?' As I testified previously, with regard to the requested White House call and White House meeting, the answer is yes," Sondland said.

YOU...ARE A MORON.
 

New member
Joined
Aug 28, 2012
Messages
12,457
Tokens
What does ANY of the above have to do with Sondland's following statement?

"I know that members of this committee have frequently framed these complicated issues in the form of a simple question: Was there a 'quid pro quo?' As I testified previously, with regard to the requested White House call and White House meeting, the answer is yes," Sondland said.

YOU...ARE A MORON.

Im the moron cause I believe his TESTIMONY under oath, and not a statement... EVEN WHEN HE SAID HIS STATEMENT WAS BASED ON "HIS PRESUMPTIONS"
 

Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2007
Messages
22,991
Tokens
Im the moron cause I believe his TESTIMONY under oath, and not a statement... EVEN WHEN HE SAID HIS STATEMENT WAS BASED ON "HIS PRESUMPTIONS"

Wtf is wrong with you???????????? THE STATEMENT I KEEP POSTING WAS UNDER OATH, TOO, YOU NO NECK, NO BRAIN RUNT.

(and, btw, why did those two WH lawyers quit? Lemme guess, you have no comment, just as you don't have a comment over Roger Stone's "7 for 7" conviction, lol.)

What does ANY of the above have to do with Sondland's following statement?

"I know that members of this committee have frequently framed these complicated issues in the form of a simple question: Was there a 'quid pro quo?' As I testified previously, with regard to the requested White House call and White House meeting, the answer is yes," Sondland said.

YOU...ARE A MORON.
 

New member
Joined
Aug 28, 2012
Messages
12,457
Tokens
Wtf is wrong with you???????????? THE STATEMENT I KEEP POSTING WAS UNDER OATH, TOO, YOU NO NECK, NO BRAIN RUNT.

(and, btw, why did those two WH lawyers quit? Lemme guess, you have no comment, just as you don't have a comment over Roger Stone's "7 for 7" conviction, lol.)

What does ANY of the above have to do with Sondland's following statement?

"I know that members of this committee have frequently framed these complicated issues in the form of a simple question: Was there a 'quid pro quo?' As I testified previously, with regard to the requested White House call and White House meeting, the answer is yes," Sondland said.

YOU...ARE A MORON.

So... What makes his statement (Which he testified was made of PRESUMPTIONS), carry more weight than him testifying that NO ONE TOLD HIM to seek Quid Pro Quo? Lets look at the facts:

Fact: Made a statement saying there was QUID PRO QUO
Fact: Testified NO ONE told him to seek quid pro quo
Fact: Testified the statement was "Presumptions"

So, why do you keep posting the same sentence of a statement, without the testimony saying it was "Presumed" and no one on the planet told him that?

Why are you cherry picking ONE SENTENCE out of his hours of statements/testimony and not the WHOLE ENTIRE THING like I have done?
 

Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2007
Messages
22,991
Tokens
So... What makes his statement (Which he testified was made of PRESUMPTIONS), carry more weight than him testifying that NO ONE TOLD HIM to seek Quid Pro Quo? Lets look at the facts:

Fact: Made a statement saying there was QUID PRO QUO
Fact: Testified NO ONE told him to seek quid pro quo
Fact: Testified the statement was "Presumptions"

So, why do you keep posting the same sentence of a statement, without the testimony saying it was "Presumed" and no one on the planet told him that?

Why are you cherry picking ONE SENTENCE out of his hours of statements/testimony and not the WHOLE ENTIRE THING like I have done?

"Copying and pasting the same thing doesnt prove you are right, it PROVES you are wrong." (Blubber runt)

ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Uh, why don't you put up your last several posts, Jagoff? JESUS, you're dumb!!!! And, answer the question, Scumbag, why would you assume that Dump's unsworn statements are more credible than Sondland's sworn ones? What POSSIBLE evidence do you have of that? NONE whatsoever. Plus, why has Sondland "turned" on Dump? You run away from that question like that fat, greasy, oinking pig that you are.

(and, btw, why did those two WH lawyers quit? Lemme guess, you have no comment, just as you don't have a comment over Roger Stone's "7 for 7" conviction, lol.)

What does ANY of the above have to do with Sondland's following statement?

"I know that members of this committee have frequently framed these complicated issues in the form of a simple question: Was there a 'quid pro quo?' As I testified previously, with regard to the requested White House call and White House meeting, the answer is yes," Sondland said.

YOU...ARE A MORON. AND, SINCE ARGUING WITH ME IS POINTLESS, WHY ARE YOU STILL FOLLOWING ME INTO THREADS AND FLAPPING YOUR THICK LIPS? WHAT'S WITH YOUR CREEPY OBSESSION WITH ME, OBSESSIVE DOUCHE??? ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS, OR
:bigfinger:madasshol:trx-smly0:fckmad::Countdown
 

Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2005
Messages
2,337
Tokens
Trump could have held it another 19 days if he wanted to and it STILL would have arrived on time. But the last payment arrived EARLY, WITHOUT ANY conditions (as EVERY SINGLE WITNESS has TESTIFIED UNDER OATH), and per federal regulations. But stupid, TDS infected, brainwashed douchebag sheep like you cannot accept that and no matter how you twist it or spin it, you cannot change those facts. But give it a try, douche, you're ALWAYS good for a laugh. Try twisting Sondland's PRESUMPTIONS again while conveniently not positing his stated FACTS, dunce. It's not working for Schiff for brains, it sure as hell isn't going to work for dunce like you. Your .000 success rate is safe.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,108,618
Messages
13,452,936
Members
99,426
Latest member
bodyhealthtechofficia
The RX is the sports betting industry's leading information portal for bonuses, picks, and sportsbook reviews. Find the best deals offered by a sportsbook in your state and browse our free picks section.FacebookTwitterInstagramContact Usforum@therx.com