Originally posted by Tassmoron
View Post
No. Gordon Sondland, has revised his testimony and has described an explicit quid pro quo.
https://time.com/5719342/trump-diplo...-quid-pro-quo/
https://time.com/5719342/trump-diplo...-quid-pro-quo/
Originally posted by Mountain Man
View Post
Other sketchy statements from Sondland's "corrections" (again, emphasis mine):
An awful lot of presuming going on. He also says "it would have been natural" for him to voice his concerns to interested parties, but pay attention to sleight of hand: He never says that he actually voiced his concerns!
Remember, any time a witness says "may have", you can substitute "may not have" without changing the meaning of the statement.
Now see if you can follow along with this one:
That's like something out of a Marx Bros. skit!
And on it goes. Taking apart testimony like this is like batting practice for defense attorneys.
"I always believed that suspending aid to Ukraine was ill-advised, although I did not know (and still do not know) when, why, or by whom the aid was suspended. However, by the beginning of September 2019, and in the absence of any credible explanation for the suspension of aid, I presumed that the aid suspension had become linked to the proposed anti-corruption statement. As I said in my prepared testimony, security aid to Ukraine was in our vital national interest and should not have been delayed for any reason. [This is nothing but his opinion. -MM] And it would have been natural for me to have voiced what I had presumed to Ambassador Taylor, Senator Johnson, the Ukrainians, and Mr. Morrison."
An awful lot of presuming going on. He also says "it would have been natural" for him to voice his concerns to interested parties, but pay attention to sleight of hand: He never says that he actually voiced his concerns!
"Soon thereafter, I came to understand [Meaning he wasn't told. -MM] that, in fact, the public statement would need to come directly from President Zelensky himself. I do not specifically recall how I learned this [Again, the implication is that he wasn't told. -MM], but I believe that the information may have come either from Mr. Giuliani or from Ambassador Volkor, who may have discussed this with Mr. Giuliani."
Remember, any time a witness says "may have", you can substitute "may not have" without changing the meaning of the statement.
"In a later conversation with Ambassador Taylor, I told him that I had been mistaken about whether a public statement could come from the Prosecutor General; I had come to understand [The implication, again, is that this isn't something he was told. -MM] that the public statement would have to come from President Zelensky himself."
Now see if you can follow along with this one:
"Ambassador Taylor recalls that Mr. Morrison told Ambassador Taylor that I told Mr. Morrison that I had conveyed this message to Mr. Yermak..."
That's like something out of a Marx Bros. skit!
And on it goes. Taking apart testimony like this is like batting practice for defense attorneys.
Comment