Sondland admits quid pro quo

[seer]

That's some mighty fine spin, but the plain fact is that Sondland testified under oath that he was never told by the President or anybody else on the planet that the release of aid was tied to Ukraine agreeing to undertake certain investigations, and contemporaneous text messages show that he clearly understood and communicated this fact to Bill Taylor.

And, yes, if the Democrats want to convince us that Trump should be impeached and removed from office then they darn well better have some conclusive evidence that he is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors. But so far, witness after witness has said that while they may have disagreed with Trump's approach to foreign policy, none of them were concerned about the legality of his negotiations.

Not Trump, not Giuliani, not ANYONE.

[Mountain Man]

Not Trump, not Giuliani, not ANYONE.

https://www.cnsnews.com/index.php/ar...rump-was-tying

Yet liberals keep trying to convince us that Sondland's testimony was somehow damning to Trump, and I keep asking myself, "What hearing did they watch?"

[seer]

Yet liberals keep trying to convince us that Sondland's testimony was somehow damning to Trump, and I keep asking myself, "What hearing did they watch?"

They are depending on the spin of the media...

[Mountain Man]

ukraine_cookie_jar.jpg

[Charles]

Representative Mike 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.”

Turner: “Which is nothing.”

https://www.cnsnews.com/index.php/ar...rump-was-tying

Yet liberals keep trying to convince us that Sondland's testimony was somehow damning to Trump, and I keep asking myself, "What hearing did they watch?"

This one?

https://www.rev.com/blog/impeachment...land-testifies

[oxmixmudd]

This one?







https://www.rev.com/blog/impeachment...land-testifies

As a bit of comic relief, I saw this comment in a review of the Democratic debates and it just reminded me so much of our debates here:

Source: CNN

After spending all day watching Republican congressmen (and one Republican congresswoman) during the impeachment hearings mindlessly denying the Everest of evidence of Donald Trump's alleged criminality, the Democratic debate was like a wake-up call from the real world.

© Copyright Original Source

Now I have my problems with many of the positions of the Democratic candidates. But they at least seem to have the capacity to recognize reality as regards what has been testified to in these impeachment hearings.

With the GOP in climate change denial mode, chasing after insane alternate reality stories tossed out there by Putin and engaged in smear campaigns against our decorated heros promoted to defend a draft dodger, liar, and all around bad person, one feels that the Republican party, my party, seems to have become the resting place for the ignorant and the foolish. Just hard to fathom.

[Mountain Man]

This one?







https://www.rev.com/blog/impeachment...land-testifies

But then Sondland later admitted this was all based on his own presumption and that he was never given an explicit or implicit directive from the President or anybody else on the planet, and in fact he testified that when he spoke to the President directly, he was told curtly and with no ambiguity that there was to be no quid pro quo.

[oxmixmudd]

But then Sondland later admitted this was all based on his own presumption and that he was never given an explicit or implicit directive from the President or anybody else on the planet, and in fact he testified that when he spoke to the President directly, he was told curtly and with no ambiguity that there was to be no quid pro quo.

I love that you keep repeating that as if it actually means anything. "No your honor, I promise I didn't do anything wrong! REALLY!!!" It's just hilarious.

[Mountain Man]

I love that you keep repeating that as if it actually means anything. "No your honor, I promise I didn't do anything wrong! REALLY!!!" It's just hilarious.

It's probably a good thing you're not an attorney, because I have a feeling that you would lose every case with your habit of cavalierly dismissing whatever hard facts don't fit your narrative.

[RumTumTugger]

I came here to see how you are psychologically coping with today's testimony being absolutely damning for Trump.

I guess the answer is that there's no level of reality or evidence you can't spin.

What evidence Starlight. presumptions and opinions are not evidence that is all we've heard so far.

here's a question for Starlight and all the other Trump haters here on this board.

What outcome did Trump ask for in the phone call to the Ukraine President? oh and cite from the transcript where it is.

[whag]

It's probably a good thing you're not an attorney, because I have a feeling that you would lose every case with your habit of cavalierly dismissing whatever hard facts don't fit your narrative.

[whag]

What evidence Starlight. presumptions and opinions are not evidence that is all we've heard so far.

here's a question for Starlight and all the other Trump haters here on this board.

What outcome did Trump ask for in the phone call to the Ukraine President?

[Charles]

But then Sondland later admitted this was all based on his own presumption and that he was never given an explicit or implicit directive from the President or anybody else on the planet, and in fact he testified that when he spoke to the President directly, he was told curtly and with no ambiguity that there was to be no quid pro quo.

Most of what I qouted was said after the part you refer to, so for that reason alone your "But then Sondland later " does not really describe what happened since that happened before and not later. If you had read the source that does not nitpick but contains everything that was said you would have known.

It also appears you (probably because you missed the context) did not understand it was a correction of exactly the interpretation you have given. In other words the source you point to left out important parts.

[Mountain Man]

In fact, a number of witnesses have testified under oath that there was no quid pro quo, no bribery, no extortion, and no witness has said that they had any concerns about the legality of Trump's negotiations with Ukraine even if they didn't agree with his approach to foreign policy.

[Mountain Man]

Most of what I qouted was said after the part you refer to, so for that reason alone your "But then Sondland later " does not really describe what happened since that happened before and not later. If you had read the source that does not nitpick but contains everything that was said you would have known.

It also appears you (probably because you missed the context) did not understand it was a correction of exactly the interpretation you have given. In other words the source you point to left out important parts.

So at best, Sondland gave contradictory answers.

But the one point he has been consistent on is that the President told him with the utmost clarity that there was to be no quid pro quo.