(no message)
(no message)
This is so much fun to watch. :-)
At the hearing, Sondland testified about a conversation with Trump where he asked the president what he wanted from Ukraine.
“And it was a very short, abrupt conversation,” the ambassador said. “He was not in a good mood. And he just said, ‘I want nothing. I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo. Tell Zelensky to do the right thing.’ Something to that effect.”
If a Dem said, "Do the right thing." to a foreign leader, you would tout it as proof he did nothing wrong. If Trump says it, you say it is extortion. Again, fun to watch.
working with the Ukrainians on the statement to announce the investigations?
You'll have to ask Trump your question, and see what he says.
testimony.
Usually I let it go when someone makes a tangential point which doesn't contradict me. But, you always make it sound as if you are disagreeing with me when you aren't. It's your posting style. I never claimed that Trump was exonerated by the testimony today.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
You can’t solicit a personal benefit for performance of an official act.
(no message)
(no message)
Link: https://time.com/5732232/mike-pompeo-kansas-senate-run-state-exit/
Again, the only acceptable/intellectually honest defense is that you don't think this rises to the level of an impeachable offense. On that, reasonable people can disagree.
That should be the GOP defense at this point. The rest - the distractions, the attacks on witnesses, etc - are meaningless.
criminal. The guy is being forced to tell the truth. He doesn’t want this.
Is he enough of an R for you Cole? No deep state. No never Trumper. Just a guy in a bind being forced to cough up the truth under oath.
This is what It means to be an R in Orange-world. Nothing matters other than saving the psychotic dear leader.
(no message)
(no message)
" a very short, abrupt conversation. He was not in a good mood. And he just said, ‘I want nothing. I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo. Tell Zelensky to do the right thing.’ Something to that effect.”
He also said that he had no other interactions with Trump.
He also changed his testimony for the third time: in written deposition, he said there was no quid pro quo. Then he added an addendum saying that there was. Now he says there was quid pro quo but that it was a "personal guess". This is how he gets out of charges of perjury you see, since there was no quid pro quo that he witnessed, yet he testified that there was. Now, he says, "Oh yeah. there was quid pro quo, and i bas that on a personal guess".
(no message)
and said he had no evidence, but that it was a guess. Meanwhile, all other first hand witnesses deny, the transcibers trancript refutes, and the foreign president of Ukraine espessly denies.
He also said that Trump said "I don't want any quid pro quo"! How fucking clear must it get for you to accept this? The answer is that you won't accept that he didn't do it (even though it would have been fine had he done so).
Sondland talked out of both sides of his mouth today because he doesn't want to face perjury charges. And he was Schiff's star witness.
Now, let's hear from the WB in the senate investigation. WB laws only protect the WB's job and work force intimidation. They say nothing about guaranteeing anonymity. Then we can get to the real roots of this impeachment that isn't an impeachment farce.
(no message)
(no message)
This guy just threw both of them under the bus.
Hard to believe.
Not a never Trumper or “deep state” guy either.
Your boy may be fooked.