Sondland putting the nail in the coffin

[spence]

I’m not sure what testimony is watching.
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.

[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