Sondland putting the nail in the coffin

[Jim in CT]

testifies that he’s making a “personal guess” about a quid pro who. before you slam the source, it’s a vide if him. his guess is good enough for me, by jiminy.

https://video.foxnews.com/v/61066642...#sp=show-clips

[wdmso]

Again ignoring a lot of very smart people .. who have years of understanding peoples intent..
This excuse since you didn't hear it directly from Trump it didn't happen is just a dishonest excuse...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Just a little plausible deniability on Trumps part, and he's not very good at it.

[Jim in CT]

More Sondland testimony!!

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.”

Pow! Right in the kisser!

[Pete F.]

It's important to note the timing of Trump's "I want nothing..I want no quid pro quo" statement to Sondland: It occurred on September 9, the exact same day the House Intel Committee received the whistleblower's complaint....

You would have let John Gotti off also, no dirty hands for him either.

Sondland with a simple but obvious point: if the meeting wasn’t tied to the investigations then…. They would have just had the meeting.

It is extraordinary to hear the Republican members emphasize the absence of direct evidence for matters for which the President has blocked both testimony and documents from being turned over.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Again ignoring a lot of very smart people .. who have years of understanding peoples intent..
This excuse since you didn't hear it directly from Trump it didn't happen is just a dishonest excuse...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i’m responding to what the witness explicitly said. We finally have someone who has firsthand knowledge from a conversation that he participated in, rather than hearsay.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Again ignoring a lot of very smart people .. who have years of understanding peoples intent..
This excuse since you didn't hear it directly from Trump it didn't happen is just a dishonest excuse...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you’re not ignoring any smart people? Alan Dershowitz isn’t smart?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

You and the Republican members emphasize the absence of direct evidence for matters for which the President has blocked both testimony and documents from being turned over.

[Got Stripers]

I’m betting there is a ton of evidence in the state department records and if no crime why not release it all to clear it all up. Why not give Bolton, Mulvaney or Rudy the green light to testify, oh yeah because while Sondland probably nailed the House impeachment coffin shut, those two would shovel all the dirt on top. Trump wanted to be famous, he might not have dreamed it would be for being one of the few presidents to be impeached. I think when it’s all over, the Clintons will have Trump and Melania over for a pity party.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

you’re not ignoring any smart people? Alan Dershowitz isn’t smart?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Is he testifying?

And again were back to no one was told directly From Trump

So it didn't happen

But Rudy did but wont testify. shocking
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Sondland asks open ended question and it’s Trump who raises, by denying, quid pro quo. Like a child who blurts out I didn’t eat the cookies when parent didn’t mentions cookies.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Is he testifying?

And again were back to no one was told directly From Trump

So it didn't happen

But Rudy did but wont testify. shocking
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

oh, limited to people
who are testifying. which smart people who testified, proved that trump ordered a quid pro quo? i missed that.

fine, compel rudy to testify, he’ll probably claim attorney client confidentiality.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Sondland asks open ended question and it’s Trump who raises, by denying, quid pro quo. Like a child who blurts out I didn’t eat the cookies when parent didn’t mentions cookies.

so you cannot deny something, without admitting to it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

I’m not sure what testimony is watching.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

so you cannot deny something, without admitting to it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Then why did Floridaman immediately respond to Sondland's "what did you want" question w/denial of quid pro quo.

Produce a rational explanation

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Produce a rational explanation

He knew he was about to be accused of Quid Pro Quo.... Quick release the aid.... What a coincidence.....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

I’m not sure what testimony is watching.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i’m watching video of
him speaking. maybe you’re simply reading CNN headlines, which actually got demolished in real
time during recent testimony. Rep Mike Turner read a CNN headline which said Sondland connected trump to the quid pro quo, Turner asked Sondland i’d he had any evidence whatsoever that trump ordered it, Sondland said
no, other than his presumption.

that’s the testimony i’m watching.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

i’m watching video of
him speaking. maybe you’re simply reading CNN headlines, which actually got demolished in real
time during recent testimony. Rep Mike Turner read a CNN headline which said Sondland connected trump to the quid pro quo, Turner asked Sondland i’d he had any evidence whatsoever that trump ordered it, Sondland said
no, other than his presumption.

that’s the testimony i’m watching.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Asking a fact witness if a crime was committed or to define one is silly at best but it is good for spinning and that is all they have.

You'd be better off watching Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney with that strong New York Irish cop energy as he gets Sondland to say clearly that the investigations Trump wanted would benefit Trump.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

He knew he was about to be accused of Quid Pro Quo.... Quick release the aid.... What a coincidence.....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you are correct sir but the base cant follow the time Line

, so Jordon presents it as somehow Trump never wanted anything by saying see he said so clearly but leaving out the call was days after they were aware of the whistleblower complaint they tried to bury

. just like read the transcript which clearly lays out Trumps intent

[Pete F.]

Jim Jordan: “Do you know what a quid pro quo is?”

Guy appointed as an ambassador after donating $1M to Trump’s inauguration: “I do.”

[scottw]

the democrat desperation is deep

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Asking a fact witness if a crime was committed or to define one is silly at best but it is good for spinning and that is all they have.

You'd be better off watching Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney with that strong New York Irish cop energy as he gets Sondland to say clearly that the investigations Trump wanted would benefit Trump.

it’s silly to ask someone who spoke to trump directly, if he requested a quid pro quo. but it’s not silly to overturn a national election because someone heard something from someone else about what might have happened.

The democrats didn’t want to impeach Clinton, and we literally had DNA evidence that he lied under oath.

the bar has been lowered, it seems.

and you’re so unbiased, you’ve stated you’ve already dismissed the Durham investigation as a partisan sham, even though it hasn’t been released.

you notice any trends in how your conclusions always, with zero exceptions, align with a certain political ideology?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Impeachment does not overturn an election
It is the constitutional remedy for a President who has abused his power as Floridaman has
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Impeachment does not overturn an election
It is the constitutional remedy for a President who has abused his power as Floridaman has
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

or it can be used to undo an election when you just can’t accept the results.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

or it can be used to undo an election when you just can’t accept the results.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No matter how much you wish for it Jim, Hillary will not be President
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

or it can be used to undo an election when you just can’t accept the results.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Thats a coup.

All Trump had to do to was avoid the situation
He finds himself in.. by

AKA acting like a Potus .. rather than a runaway train who thinks hes untouchable and cant be held accountable ..
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

or it can be used to undo an election when you just can’t accept the results.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So you are ok with a sitting president abusing their power at the expense of our national security?

Sure sounds like it.

Do you have any talking points that haven’t been contradicted with testimony under oath?

You do know Nunes Is giving the house republicans nothing right?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Then why did Floridaman immediately respond to Sondland's "what did you want" question w/denial of quid pro quo.

Produce a rational explanation

It was a whopping one hour after Congress announced they were going to investigate.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

He knew he was about to be accused of Quid Pro Quo.... Quick release the aid.... What a coincidence.....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If asked what I want from the Ukraine I probably would have said either borscht or chicken Kiev.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

So you are ok with a sitting president abusing their power at the expense of our national security?

Sure sounds like it.

Do you have any talking points that haven’t been contradicted with testimony under oath?

You do know Nunes Is giving the house republicans nothing right?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

if a sitting VP can use withheld aid as leverage to get what he wants, i don’t see why it’s an “abuse of power” for a president that do the same. Certainly it’s within the scope if the chief executive to ascertain the truth about what americans ( even
democrats) are doing.

i also don’t think you overturn a duly elected president, over hearsay and “presumptions”. that’s not even circumstantial evidence, which is at least evidence. as of this moment, hearsay and presumptions is all we have.

Why did Sondland read a 23-page opening statement which didn’t include the words “by the way, this is all presumption, i have zero direct evidence connecting Trump to this.”? Answer, because this isn’t about facts, it’s about getting rid of a president they hate. gimme an alternative reason for excluding such a key fact from
a 23 page opening statement.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device