Sondland claimed first in his written statement that he told Zelensky’s aid Yermak that Trump would release aid after Zelensky announced an investigation into the Biden’s, and he changed his testimony after seeing what other witnesses said (specifically Taylor whose entire testimony was based on what Sondland told him).
Sondland revised his testimony to “I think that I told him, I can’t be sure, but I think so”
Now it occurs to someone in the msm to ask the guy that he talked to, and Yermak says that There is nothing wrong with his memory and that Sondland never talked to him about anything. The only time he ever said a thing to him was in passing at an escalator where they exchanged pleasantries and said, “nice meeting” and nothing else.
Sondland was the main witness for the Dems, and several other of there witnesses gave testimony based purely on what Sondland told them. And it has now been shown to be false.
But facts won’t stop the Dems now.
Link: https://time.com/5746417/ukraine-andriy-yermak-impeachment-interview/
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
Of course Ukraine's president is going to say this. He is dependent upon the United States, and Trump.
his statement.
Your argument can be used on any witness ever. Talk about a lack of critical thinking skills.
By the way, this guy is an actual witness.
Ukraine is dependent upon US military aid. Its leaders will not do anything to imperil it.
Pleasing Trump keeps that aid going. They have no incentive to say anything different.
It’s like asking a shopkeeper if he was really being shaken down by the Gambinos.
He’s likely to say no.
1 You are being ridiculous to think any aid could be shut down to Ukraine after all of this. They are under no threat (and never have been). Your point is false, but....
2 In the bigger point, you use false logic and then apply it selectively:
Under your logic, we can only believe Trump’s staff testimony if it is against him since they could be fired for turning on him. He can’t be found innocent by you.
Did you apply your logic to the Dem witnesses who are at risk of being ostracized and ruined if they don’t testify against Trump? There are lots of other examples of this.
You don’t get to selectively dismiss real witnesses to fit your desires.
3 your going to impeach a POTUS over this garbage where the witnesses say it didn’t happen, but you say, ”they’re lying, I just know it!”!!
You are thinking from the perspective that Trump is assumed guilty, and that he has to prove his innocence.
A mazingly, there is indeed evidence to prove that innocence, but the you selectively say”I don’t trust it”.
That is ironically very Russian of you.
And there is no equivalence between the Seton testimony of the entire US Ukraine team - ambassador, NSC director, etc - and the statements of the Ukrainian government.
Hint: the latter can be dismissed outright.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
...we just have strongly different opinions on how to do that, but the same goal.
I suppose our harsh language gives others the impression that we don't get along, but thatis not true.
Keep it less personal please.
(no message)
(no message)
not bad.
The things that happened to Trump make my blood boil too, but you aren’t talking to John Brennan or Andrew McCabe.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(that Time magazine still exists and is doing good reporting).
(no message)
(no message)