• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Guliani will be the fall guy...

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
So far once Trump throws someone under the bus they tend to remain there. If Giuliani had any intelligence at all he would already by sending very quiet feelers out about a plea deal.
 

Shad

Veteran Member
A CNN commentator today indicates that Republican Representative Castor asked a question that suggests that the groundwork is being laid to make Guliani to be the bad guy in this whole bribery effort.

Ruby is the only thing Dems have. All Dem and witness assumptions are about Ruby.

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics...stimony-trump-impeachment-king-tapper-vpx.cnn

This is a distortion. Sondland said Trump told him to talk to Rudy not follow Rudy's order. That is not evidence of Trump endorsing anything Rudy proposed. Sondland didn't confirm with his superior which is Sondland's error. When he did Trump told him the opposite. More so there was no meeting resulting from Rudy said.

The question for this thread...will that work? And for whom?

Nope as Sondland not following the chain of command is his problem.
 

sealchan

Well-Known Member
What has that got to do with anything? Nothing as far as I can see. He will do what he will do if Guiliani is convicted and he's still POTUS. Or do you assert he has to pardon everyone or no one?

Trump's sense of justice is entirely based on loyalty. Cohen turned so he will get no pardon. For some reason I think that Trump is waiting for the next election results to pardon his loyal ones who are guilty of crimes.
 

sealchan

Well-Known Member
Ruby is the only thing Dems have. All Dem and witness assumptions are about Ruby.


This is a distortion. Sondland said Trump told him to talk to Rudy not follow Rudy's order. That is not evidence of Trump endorsing anything Rudy proposed. Sondland didn't confirm with his superior which is Sondland's error. When he did Trump told him the opposite. More so there was no meeting resulting from Rudy said.



Nope as Sondland not following the chain of command is his problem.

I dont understand how you can not see that Trump was running his bribery through a client privilege covered lawyer willing to do what career ambassadors knew to be unethical and against good foreign policy? Trump used a lawyer to hide what he knew would be found unacceptible by those with the power to do something about it.
 

Shad

Veteran Member
I dont understand how you can not see that Trump was running his bribery through a client privilege covered lawyer willing to do what career ambassadors knew to be unethical and against good foreign policy?

You are assuming Ruby's proposals were accepted by Trump without evidence.

Trump used a lawyer to hide what he knew would be found unacceptible by those with the power to do something about it.

Assumption
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
I am confident that a shark like Guliani went into this with his eyes wide open. And that he has arranged for a golden parachute that could covered Manhattan.
Tom
 

Shad

Veteran Member
I am confident that a shark like Guliani went into this with his eyes wide open. And that he has arranged for a golden parachute that could covered Manhattan.
Tom

Ruby is key. He needs to testify. Everything goes back to him.
 

sealchan

Well-Known Member
You are assuming Ruby's proposals were accepted by Trump without evidence.



Assumption

On the July 25th call where Trump asks for a favor...how many times did he direct Zelensky to talk to Giuliani? Why would he do that...he's the POTUS for crying out loud? Why direct this "perfect conversation" to be touted through a personal attorney at his expense when he has an ambassadorial staff to handle this sort of thing?

Why put that one call on a high security server? Why remove content with ellipses from a rough transcript when he could have simply released the full transcript?

Timeline:
Near to 7/18: Ukraine funds frozen
7/25: Trump directs Zelensky to talk to Trump's lawyer repeatedly
Late July: Whistleblower report on 7/25 call reaches Congress
Late July: It is publicly realized that Congress has informally started Impeachment proceedings and that hearings would take place in September
9/11: Some but not all Ukrainian funds are released
10/4: Ukraine prosecutor announces review of Burisma cases

Ukraine to review cases linked to founder of firm that employed Biden's son
 

Shad

Veteran Member
On the July 25th call where Trump asks for a favor...how many times did he direct Zelensky to talk to Giuliani?

Talking to does not mean accept what Ruby says. Ruby is outside the chain of command.


Why would he do that...he's the POTUS for crying out loud?

As Rudy is the one putting stupid ideas in Trump's head.

Why direct this "perfect conversation" to be touted through a personal attorney at his expense when he has an ambassadorial staff to handle this sort of thing?

That was not through Rudy. There was no meeting resulting from Rudy's action.

Why put that one call on a high security server?

Leaks.

Why remove content with ellipses from a rough transcript when he could have simply released the full transcript?

There is no full transcript. There was no recording. Watch the hearing. No one disputes the transcript.


Timeline:
Near to 7/18: Ukraine funds frozen

No aid was frozen in June and early July. It was not all aid.

7/25: Trump directs Zelensky to talk to Trump's lawyer repeatedly

Yup

Late July: Whistleblower report on 7/25 call reaches Congress

Yup

Late July: It is publicly realized that Congress has informally started Impeachment proceedings and that hearings would take place in September

Yup

9/11: Some but not all Ukrainian funds are released

Wrong. All holds were removed.

10/4: Ukraine prosecutor announces review of Burisma cases

Nope. The investigation is against the owner at this time. You are speculating this investigation was just created now for Trump. Now provide evidence it was. I will wait.


Did you read this? It is against the owner over previous cases. Try again. Maybe read what you link

Do note the Prez Z has been praised by Dems for months. Now you are saying he is corrupt based on your speculation.
 

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
Sondland said Trump told him to talk to Rudy not follow Rudy's order. That is not evidence of Trump endorsing anything Rudy proposed.
So let's see....

The President tells the EU Ambassador to work with the President's personal lawyer on Ukraine. That alone raises an instant question...why the President's personal lawyer? Giuliani wasn't a government employee, and he's contradicted himself on the role he was playing (he's said he was working in Ukraine on behalf of the State Dept., and said he was working as Trump's personal lawyer). There's also the question of why the EU Ambassador is working on Ukraine, since Ukraine isn't in the EU.

Anyways, Sondland does as he's directed and goes to Giuliani to begin working on Ukraine. Giuliani tells him the President wants them to get Ukraine to make a public announcement about investigating the Russian propaganda narrative about 2016, and investigating Burisma and the Bidens (important to note that Giuliani advocated both on Fox News). Then later the President, in his second phone call with the President of Ukraine tells him "I need a favor though..." and then proceeds to try and get the President of Ukraine to investigate the 2016 Russian propaganda narrative, and investigate Burisma and the Bidens.

Do you get that? Rudy Giuliani proposed to Sondland that they get Ukraine to announce two investigations, and not long after that Trump directly tells Zelenskiy he'd like him to conduct the exact same two investigations. And we also have multiple witnesses who heard Trump asking Sondland if Ukraine was going to do the investigations.

And you're arguing there's no evidence linking what Giuliani proposed and Trump? Where the heck have you been?

Sondland didn't confirm with his superior which is Sondland's error.
He said he kept Sect. Pompeo in the loop. Guess we should get Pompeo to testify, eh?

When he did Trump told him the opposite.
Yeah, a full week after the WH had been informed by the DNI that the scheme had been exposed and a whistleblower complaint had been filed.
 
Last edited:

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
Talking to does not mean accept what Ruby says. Ruby is outside the chain of command.


As Rudy is the one putting stupid ideas in Trump's head.
You're making Trump sound a lot like Abrahamic God.
Supposedly powerful. But when things don't work out, it's all about the underlings. From angels to serpents to A&E, it's all their fault. Can't be His, because He's perfect.
Tom
 

sealchan

Well-Known Member
You're making Trump sound a lot like Abrahamic God.
Supposedly powerful. But when things don't work out, it's all about the underlings. From angels to serpents to A&E, it's all their fault. Can't be His, because He's perfect.
Tom

That's the psychology of one who repeatedly ignores facts in favor of protecting a sacrosanct belief. The Russians have and will continue to feed this behavior. But I think that people free of such extreme attitudes will know where the truth lies.
 

Milton Platt

Well-Known Member
A CNN commentator today indicates that Republican Representative Castor asked a question that suggests that the groundwork is being laid to make Guliani to be the bad guy in this whole bribery effort.

Watch through to end of video...
King: Sondland has guaranteed Trump's impeachment - CNN Video

The question for this thread...will that work? And for whom?

Trump has and will toss anybody under the bus necessary to protect himself from his own impulsive actions.
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
Trump has and will toss anybody under the bus necessary to protect himself from his own impulsive actions.
It's been his MO for a long time.
From banks and investors to ex-wives to Daniels and Cohen to you-name-it.

And I'm sure that Guliani knew that going in and protected himself appropriately.
Tom
 

Shad

Veteran Member
You're making Trump sound a lot like Abrahamic God.

Wrong. You are assuming things not in evidence. You are treating your speculation as fact. Try again

Supposedly powerful. But when things don't work out, it's all about the underlings. From angels to serpents to A&E, it's all their fault. Can't be His, because He's perfect.
Tom

This is you speculating again.
 

Shad

Veteran Member
That's ignoring all the other DIRECT evidence about what went down.

There is no direct evidence. All you have is hearsay and assumptions. Now look up what direct evidence means before you use the term again. Next!
 

Shad

Veteran Member
So let's see....

The President tells the EU Ambassador to work with the President's personal lawyer on Ukraine. That alone raises an instant question...why the President's personal lawyer?

He said talk to not work with. Try again.


Giuliani wasn't a government employee, and he's contradicted himself on the role he was playing (he's said he was working in Ukraine on behalf of the State Dept., and said he was working as Trump's personal lawyer). There's also the question of why the EU Ambassador is working on Ukraine, since Ukraine isn't in the EU.

As the EU is involved with Ukraine in aid and membership. This was covered in the hearing.

Anyways, Sondland does as he's directed and goes to Giuliani to begin working on Ukraine.

Talk to not follow orders.

Giuliani tells him the President wants them to get Ukraine to make a public announcement about investigating the Russian propaganda narrative about 2016, and investigating Burisma and the Bidens (important to note that Giuliani advocated both on Fox News).

Which is hearsay.

Then later the President, in his second phone call with the President of Ukraine tells him "I need a favor though..." and then proceeds to try and get the President of Ukraine to investigate the 2016 Russian propaganda narrative, and investigate Burisma and the Bidens.

And 2016. POTUS can request investigations.

Rudy Giuliani proposed to Sondland that they get Ukraine to announce two investigations, and not long after that Trump directly tells Zelenskiy he'd like him to conduct the exact same two investigations.

Which POTUS can request.

And we also have multiple witnesses who heard Trump asking Sondland if Ukraine was going to do the investigations.

Not one said that. Sondland had no such order nor question from Trump.

And you're arguing there's no evidence linking what Giuliani proposed and Trump? Where the heck have you been?

Hard evidence. If my lawyer robs a store I am not respond for the lawyer's action. You must provide evidence I ordered or endorsed the action. Try again.


He said he kept Sect. Pompeo in the loop. Guess we should get Pompeo to testify, eh?

Yes he should as should Ruby.




Yeah, a full week after the WH had been informed by the DNI that the scheme had been exposed and a whistleblower complaint had been filed.

You are projecting your speculation as fact.
 

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
He said talk to not work with. Try again.
LOL.....now that's hilarious! I can just see Trump now....."I never told Ambassador Sondland to "work with" Giuliani, I only told him to "talk to" him."

Talk to not follow orders.
Hilarious! That this is what you've been reduced to speaks volumes.

Which is hearsay.
Um.....no. It's an in-person, first-hand account.

And 2016. POTUS can request investigations.

Which POTUS can request.
Not if he's leveraging Congressionally authorized military aid to get a country to help him with his reelection.

Not one said that. Sondland had no such order nor question from Trump.
??????? Where the heck have you been? Are you even paying attention to the hearings? CLICK HERE

"I heard President Trump then clarify that Ambassador Sondland was in Ukraine. Ambassador Sondland replied, yes, he was in Ukraine and went on to state that President Zelensky "loves your ***." I then heard President Trump ask, "So he's going to do the investigation?"

Ambassador Sondland replied that, "He's going to do it," adding that "President Zelensky will do anything you ask him to do." Even though I did not take notes of these statements, I have a clear recollection."


Hard evidence. If my lawyer robs a store I am not respond for the lawyer's action. You must provide evidence I ordered or endorsed the action. Try again.
We already do. We have a transcript of the phone call where Trump specifically asks Zelenskiy to investigate the Bidens as well as the Russian propaganda narrative about 2016. We also have a first-hand account of someone hearing Trump checking in with Sondland on whether the Ukrainians were going to do the investigations.

Yes he should as should Ruby.
It's Rudy, not Ruby.

You are projecting your speculation as fact.
It is not speculation that Trump's "I want nothing" message was after the WH had been notified of the whistleblower complaint. It's documented fact.
 
Last edited:
Top