Oh Donnie, You're invited

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

Pretty sad that on the world stage at the Nato meeting, our presidential leader whines like a spoiled brat about the Impeachment and airing our dirty laundry for the world to see. In contrast Nancy attends a climate change summit in spite of a Trumps desire to pull out of any agreement to address the fake science and when asked about the impeachment, she said while overseas its policy not to speak ill of the president or discuss our internal issues. One is respectful and the other childish, not to mention he is expending the trade war and now suggest a deal with China might have to wait until after the 2020 election. Manufacturing is taking the hit and farmers will get coal for Xmas, it’s what Trump has been collecting from every stocking he has had since birth.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

yeah....remember when pelosi went to syria to kiss assad's ass...I guess you don't....proceed with your gibberish

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by scottw

yeah....remember when pelosi went to syria to kiss assad's ass...I guess you don't....proceed with your gibberish

Syrian civil war Started in March 2015 she visited in april 2007

your getting so desperate you dont even take the time to check the Facts.. Did you miss Trump handing Syria back to Assad russia and Turkey you're ok with that, and its not surprising

[Got Stripers]

How does that compare to airing our dirty laundry and whining like a baby about impeachment? What a well thought out retort Scott.🤡
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Sea Dangles]

Haters gonna hate
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Syrian civil war Started in March 2015 she visited in april 2007

so??

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

How does that compare to airing our dirty laundry and whining like a baby about impeachment?

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

nancy is pretty childish....she tries to sound adult but she's not fooling anyone...well, you I guess

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

How does that compare to airing our dirty laundry and whining like a baby about impeachment? What a well thought out retort Scott.🤡
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Does it bother you at all, that Pelosi lives in a mansion and flies in private aircraft, yet you’d let her tell you to make sacrifices that she would never dream of making? That’s a sincere question.

I respect your concern for the environment. But youre ok that wealthy and celebrities have some
kind of divine right to utilize luxuries that harm the environment? They’re somehow
entitled to live differently than the rest of us?

It’s hard for me to believe, that they actually believe, what they are saying.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by scottw

I guess you missed the obama years...this is hilarious nonsense^^^

You should learn to pay attention, instead of reciting baloney.
We spent years and millions training and equipping Ukrainian forces and they are now able to use the Javelin systems.
They are missiles, not magic spells

Fiona Hill: (13:54)
I was not initially in 2015 before I joined the government. And I’m sure that many people on the committee have seen that I wrote an opinion piece with a colleague at the Brookings Institution in that juncture. Because I was very worried at that particular point in time that the Ukrainian military was not in a fit state to really take on board sophisticated weapons, be they defensive or offensive weapons. And I worried that there was not a longterm sustainable plan given the overwhelming force that the Russians could apply against the Ukrainians. However, when I came into government in 2017 and started to interact with all of my colleagues in the Pentagon and you had Laura Cooper here yesterday, I realized in fact that there’d been an awful lot of work done on this. And that there was a clear and consistent plan for the sustainability long term of the Ukrainian military so I changed my mind.

Steve Castor: (14:45)
Okay. And you’re in fact, one of the, I believe the only witness that we’ve spoken to that has been able to articulate the opposition to providing the javelins. And as we understand it during the Obama administration, the interagency consensus was in fact to provide the javelins but they were not provided. Are you aware of the decision back then?

Fiona Hill: (15:05)
I was, and I think it was very much made on a political basis about concerns that this would provoke the Russians depending on how this was presented. And we were very mindful of that also when there were the discussions internally about the lethal defensive weapons inside of the administration.

Steve Castor: (15:22)
And Mr. Holmes, you’re on the ground in Kiev and the javelins have now been authorized, provided. What’s the view from the field, the U.S. embassy as to the effectiveness of the javelins?

David Holmes: (15:39)
They’re an important strategic deterrent. They’re not actively employed in combat operations right now, but the mere idea that were the Russians to advance substantially using certain kinds of armor that the Ukrainians would have this capability deters them from doing so. And it also thereby sends a very important symbolic message to the Ukrainian military that they have access to these high end technology and that we trust them to do it. I would only add also they’ve offered to buy some using their own funds. The initial traunch was provided through basically a program to do that, but they’ve now offered to spend their own money to buy more, so I think they think they’re important

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

So no matter what he says, it's evidence that there was a quid pro quo.

Stuck between a rock and a hard place, what choice did Zelensky have?
In his position what would you say, if you had been told that the only way to assure that you get what you needed to survive was to lie?
Keep in mind the Trumplican claim that politicians lie all the time.

Zelensky's closing statement from his Time interview:
"Look, I never talked to the President from the position of a quid pro quo. That’s not my thing. … I don’t want us to look like beggars. But you have to understand. We’re at war. If you’re our strategic partner, then you can’t go blocking anything for us. I think that’s just about fairness. It’s not about a quid pro quo. It just goes without saying."

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Stuck between a rock and a hard place, what choice did Zelensky have?
In his position what would you say, if you had been told that the only way to assure that you get what you needed to survive was to lie?
Keep in mind the Trumplican claim that politicians lie all the time.

Zelensky's closing statement from his Time interview:
"Look, I never talked to the President from the position of a quid pro quo. That’s not my thing. … I don’t want us to look like beggars. But you have to understand. We’re at war. If you’re our strategic partner, then you can’t go blocking anything for us. I think that’s just about fairness. It’s not about a quid pro quo. It just goes without saying."

not just zelensky, according to you and the liberals here, everyone who denied the quid pro quo, was actually providing evidence there was a quid pro quo.

Your mind was made up before the first witness opened their mouth.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

they are clearly insane...just enjoy the spectacle

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

not just zelensky, according to you and the liberals here, everyone who denied the quid pro quo, was actually providing evidence there was a quid pro quo.

Your mind was made up before the first witness opened their mouth.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You never listened to a witness, did you?

From Sondland's testimony

Reflected President Trump’s desires and requirements. Within my State Department emails, there is a July 19th email. This email was sent. This email was sent to Secretary Pompeo, Secretary Perry, Brian McCormack, who is Secretary Perry’s chief of staff at the time. Ms. Kenna, who is the acting… Pardon me. Who is the executive secretariat for Secretary Pompeo, Chief of Staff Mulvaney, and Mr. Mulvaney’s senior advisor, Rob Blair. A lot of senior officials. A lot of senior officials.

Sondland: (30:45)
Here is my exact quote from that email, “I talked to Zelensky just now. He is prepared to receive POTUS’s call. Will assure him that he intends to run a fully transparent investigation, and will turn over every stone. He would greatly appreciate a call prior to Sunday so that he can put out some media about a friendly and productive call. No details. Prior to Ukraine election on Sunday.” Chief of Staff Mulvaney responded, “I asked the NSC to set it up for tomorrow.” Everyone was in the loop. It was no secret. Everyone was informed via email on July 19th, days before the presidential call. As I communicated to the team, I told President Zelensky in advance that assurances to run a fully transparent investigation and turn over every stone were necessary in his call with President Trump. On July 19th, in a WhatsApp message between Ambassador Taylor, Ambassador Volker, and me, Ambassador Volker stated, “Had breakfast with Rudy this morning.” That’s Ambassador Volker and Rudy Giuliani. “Teeing up call with Yermak Monday.” That’s senior advisor, Andriy Yermak. “Must have helped. Most important is for Zelensky to say that he will help investigation and address any specific personnel issues, if there are any.”

Sondland: (32:33)
On August 10th, the next day, Mr. Yermak texted me, “Once we have a date,” which is a date for the White House meeting, “we will call for a press briefing, announcing upcoming visit and outlining vision for the reboot of the US-Ukraine relationship, including among other things, Burisma and election meddling in investigations.” This is from Mr. Yermak to me.

Sondland: (33:06)
The following day, August 11th, and this is critical, I sent an email to Counselor Brechbuhl and Lisa Kenna. Lisa Kenna was frequently used as the pathway to Secretary Pompeo, as sometimes he preferred to receive his emails through her. She would print them out and put them in front of him. With the subject “Ukraine.” I wrote, “Mike,” referring to Mike Pompeo, “Kurt and I negotiated a statement from Zelensky to be delivered for our review in a day or two. The contents will hopefully make the boss happy enough,” the boss being the President, “to authorize an invitation. Zelensky plans to have a big presser,” press conference, ” on the openness subject, including specifics next week.” All of which referred to the 2016 and the Burisma.

[Sea Dangles]

Greatest president of our lifetime
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

You never listened to a witness, did you?

From Sondland's testimony

Reflected President Trump’s desires and requirements. Within my State Department emails, there is a July 19th email. This email was sent. This email was sent to Secretary Pompeo, Secretary Perry, Brian McCormack, who is Secretary Perry’s chief of staff at the time. Ms. Kenna, who is the acting… Pardon me. Who is the executive secretariat for Secretary Pompeo, Chief of Staff Mulvaney, and Mr. Mulvaney’s senior advisor, Rob Blair. A lot of senior officials. A lot of senior officials.

Sondland: (30:45)
Here is my exact quote from that email, “I talked to Zelensky just now. He is prepared to receive POTUS’s call. Will assure him that he intends to run a fully transparent investigation, and will turn over every stone. He would greatly appreciate a call prior to Sunday so that he can put out some media about a friendly and productive call. No details. Prior to Ukraine election on Sunday.” Chief of Staff Mulvaney responded, “I asked the NSC to set it up for tomorrow.” Everyone was in the loop. It was no secret. Everyone was informed via email on July 19th, days before the presidential call. As I communicated to the team, I told President Zelensky in advance that assurances to run a fully transparent investigation and turn over every stone were necessary in his call with President Trump. On July 19th, in a WhatsApp message between Ambassador Taylor, Ambassador Volker, and me, Ambassador Volker stated, “Had breakfast with Rudy this morning.” That’s Ambassador Volker and Rudy Giuliani. “Teeing up call with Yermak Monday.” That’s senior advisor, Andriy Yermak. “Must have helped. Most important is for Zelensky to say that he will help investigation and address any specific personnel issues, if there are any.”

Sondland: (32:33)
On August 10th, the next day, Mr. Yermak texted me, “Once we have a date,” which is a date for the White House meeting, “we will call for a press briefing, announcing upcoming visit and outlining vision for the reboot of the US-Ukraine relationship, including among other things, Burisma and election meddling in investigations.” This is from Mr. Yermak to me.

Sondland: (33:06)
The following day, August 11th, and this is critical, I sent an email to Counselor Brechbuhl and Lisa Kenna. Lisa Kenna was frequently used as the pathway to Secretary Pompeo, as sometimes he preferred to receive his emails through her. She would print them out and put them in front of him. With the subject “Ukraine.” I wrote, “Mike,” referring to Mike Pompeo, “Kurt and I negotiated a statement from Zelensky to be delivered for our review in a day or two. The contents will hopefully make the boss happy enough,” the boss being the President, “to authorize an invitation. Zelensky plans to have a big presser,” press conference, ” on the openness subject, including specifics next week.” All of which referred to the 2016 and the Burisma.

did you miss the part of Sondlands testimony, when he explicitly stated he had no direct evidence of a quid pro quo, just a presumption on his part? Which is nothing.

There is zero chance he gets removed from office, and a decent chance he gets re-elected.


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT;1180879

Your mind was made up before the first witness opened their mouth.
[size=1

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device[/size]

This is hilarious statment from you...

SO if someones mind was made up beforehand

And all the information presented re enforces this . You find that odd

But having your mind made up that nothing happened.. then your given the same info . And dismiss it as hear say .. just tells everyone you need to understand evidence.. you dont need a gun to convict someone of murder.. seems for you. a gun is required with out it no ones guilty
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Does it bother you at all, that Pelosi lives in a mansion and flies in private aircraft, yet you’d let her tell you to make sacrifices that she would never dream of making? That’s a sincere question.

I respect your concern for the environment. But youre ok that wealthy and celebrities have some
kind of divine right to utilize luxuries that harm the environment? They’re somehow
entitled to live differently than the rest of us?

It’s hard for me to believe, that they actually believe, what they are saying.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Oh no I don’t think the rich are not owing this country for what either they or their family made because of what this country provided in the way of business opportunities. I’m all for a wealth tax, it’s about time they stopped avoiding paying what is a drop in the bucket, they should be paying more because they can afford it. They should start helping pay for their success, pay down our debt, help pay for higher education and rebuild our infrastructure.

That includes the Trump’s and Pelosi’s of the world.

Still has nothing to do with Trump whining like a baby on the world stage, it’s just not the way our elected leaders should be acting overseas; you keep that crap at home. Trump can’t of course it has ALWAYS been all about him.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

This is hilarious statment from you...

SO if someones mind was made up beforehand

And all the information presented re enforces this . You find that odd

But having your mind made up that nothing happened.. then your given the same info . And dismiss it as hear say .. just tells everyone you need to understand evidence.. you dont need a gun to convict someone of murder.. seems for you. a gun is required with out it no ones guilty
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

there was no direct evidence of anything.

tell us again how the economy hasn’t done anything, and how trump plays no role in getting federal judges put in place.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

This is hilarious statment from you...

SO if someones mind was made up beforehand

And all the information presented re enforces this . You find that odd

But having your mind made up that nothing happened.. then your given the same info . And dismiss it as hear say .. just tells everyone you need to understand evidence.. you dont need a gun to convict someone of murder.. seems for you. a gun is required with out it no ones guilty
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

there no evidence there was. quid pro quo, though i’d bet there probably was. but if it wasn’t bad when biden did it, i don’t see why it’s bad when trump does it.

did biden use quid pro quo to get what he wanted?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

did you miss the part of Sondlands testimony, when he explicitly stated he had no direct evidence of a quid pro quo, just a presumption on his part? Which is nothing.

There is zero chance he gets removed from office, and a decent chance he gets re-elected.


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Awful lot of people with the same presumption, obviously mass hysteria.

Dan Goldman: (27:26)
And at this time you were aware of the President’s desire along with Rudy Giuliani to do these investigations, including the 2016 election interference investigation, is that right?

Gordon Sondland: (27:38)
That’s correct.

Dan Goldman: (27:40)
And you said President Trump had directed you to talk, you and the others to talk to Rudy Giuliani at the Oval Office on May 23rd, is that right?

Gordon Sondland: (27:51)
If we wanted to get anything done with Ukraine, it was apparent to us we needed to talk to Rudy.

Dan Goldman: (27:55)
Right, you understood that Mr. Giuliani spoke for the President, correct?

Gordon Sondland: (28:00)
That’s correct.

Dan Goldman: (28:03)
And in fact, President Trump also made that clear to President Zelensky in that same July 25th phone call, he said, “Mr. Giuliani is a highly respected man. He was the Mayor of New York city, a great mayor and I would like him to call you. I will ask him to call you along with the attorney general. Rudy very much knows what’s happening and he is a very capable guy.” And after this, President Trump then mentions Mr. Giuliani twice more in that call. Now from Mr. Giuliani by this point, you understood that in order to get that White House meeting that you wanted President Zelensky to have and that President Zelensky desperately wanted to have, that Ukraine would have to initiate these two investigations. Is that right?

Gordon Sondland: (28:55)
Well, they would have to announce that they were going to do it.

Dan Goldman: (28:58)
Right, because Giuliani and President Trump didn’t actually care if they did them, right?

Gordon Sondland: (29:03)
I never heard, Mr. Goldman, anyone say that the investigations had to start or had to be completed. The only thing I heard from Mr. Giuliani or otherwise was that they had to be announced in some form and that form kept changing.

Dan Goldman: (29:19)
Announced publicly?

Gordon Sondland: (29:20)
Announced publicly.

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

there was no direct evidence of anything.

tell us again how the economy hasn’t done anything, and how trump plays no role in getting federal judges put in place.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

All of that doesn't preclude him acting inappropriately on this issue.

"I need a favor, though"

You can argue it is impeachable or not, but pretty clearly he withheld aid to try and get an investigation into the Biden's to benefit him politically, and only released the aid when he heard about the whistleblower report.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

The WH seems not to be able to find any record of the "no QPQ" call.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

All of that doesn't preclude him acting inappropriately on this issue.

"I need a favor, though"

You can argue it is impeachable or not, but pretty clearly he withheld aid to try and get an investigation into the Biden's to benefit him politically, and only released the aid when he heard about the whistleblower report.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

so a president can’t do
anything that will benefit him politically. So if Trump can ink a favorable trade deal with China which helps our economy, he can’t do it if it helps him politically?

Biden was sure bragging about using quid pro quo to get what he wanted, I bet he thought that helped him politically.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

The WH seems not to be able to find any record of the "no QPQ" call.

how about the conversation between trump and Sondman? That was pretty explicit.

and both parties on the call, deny any quid pro quo, so theres that.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

how about the conversation between trump and Sondman? That was pretty explicit.

and both parties on the call, deny any quid pro quo, so theres that.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Do you mean the call where Trump said "No QPQ"? and then recently he read the words he said from a piece of paper on the WH lawn?

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Do you mean the call where Trump said "No QPQ"? and then recently he read the words he said from a piece of paper on the WH lawn?

The call that apparently didn't exist you mean?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Do you mean the call where Trump said "No QPQ"? and then recently he read the words he said from a piece of paper on the WH lawn?

i meant when Sondman asked trump what he wanted, and trump told him nothing, no qpq.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

so a president can’t do
anything that will benefit him politically. So if Trump can ink a favorable trade deal with China which helps our economy, he can’t do it if it helps him politically?

Biden was sure bragging about using quid pro quo to get what he wanted, I bet he thought that helped him politically.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Not when it is counter to US foreign policy, no.

What Biden did was not the same Jim, no matter how many times you say it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

The GOP changed its platform to pro-Russia when Trump became the nominee and is now saying it’s basically all good that Russia has invaded and occupied part of Ukraine. Can you really blame their politicians for having an opinion on America’s elections.

So now the move over the last 72 hours has been to conflate criminal interference in an election with having a preference. Yet another way the GOP shows confidence their base won’t see through their lies.

This is why waiting for the next election — the very election Trump is NOW corrupting and will stop at nothing to “win” — is no substitute for impeachment and removal.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

i meant when Sondman asked trump what he wanted, and trump told him nothing, no qpq.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

https://www.justsecurity.org/67536/h...ever-happened/


At the heart of the impeachment inquiry, members of Congress may have been mistakenly led to believe that there were two phone calls between President Donald Trump and Ambassador Gordon Sondland in early September—with the second call having the possibility of helping the President’s case. That’s not what happened. There was only one call, and it was highly incriminating.

The call occurred on September 7th. In this call, Trump did say there was “no quid pro quo” with Ukraine, but he then went on to outline his preconditions for releasing the security assistance and granting a White House visit. The call was so alarming that when John Bolton learned of it, he ordered his deputy Tim Morrison to immediately report it to the National Security Council lawyers.

Sondland has testified there was a call on September 9th in which Trump said there was “no quid pro quo,” but that he wanted President Zelenskyy “to do” the right thing. A close reading of the publicly available evidence shows that the latter call was actually the very one that sent Morrison to the lawyers, and that Ambassador Bill Taylor foregrounded in his written deposition to inform Congress of the quid pro quo.

As this article was in the publication process at Just Security, the Washington Post published a report raising doubts about the existence of the September 9 call. The analysis that follows is consistent with the Post’s report and, among other points, shows why Sondland’s “no quid pro quo” call is in fact the same as the September 7th call that Morrison reported to NSC lawyers on September 7th

One of the central questions that the House’s impeachment inquiry is attempting to resolve is “whether President Trump sought to condition official acts, such as a White House meeting or U.S. military assistance, on Ukraine’s willingness to assist with two political investigations that would help his reelection campaign.” And, over the past several weeks, witnesses testifying before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) have given uncontested testimony that established the following:
∙During a July 10, 2019 meeting at the White House, the U.S. Ambassador to the European Union told Ukrainians officials that there would be a “pre-requisite of investigations” before any White House meeting would occur. (Sondland Opening Statement, Nov. 20, 2019, at 10; Hill Depo. at 27; Vindman Depo. at 29)
∙During a July 25, 2019 phone call, President Trump asked President Zelenskyy for the “favor” of an investigation into Joe Biden and the false, Russian-backed claims that it was Ukraine that interfered in the 2016 U.S. election. (Memcon of Trump-Zelenskyy Call, July 25, 2019)
∙Following a July 26, 2019 meeting between the Ambassador to the EU and Ukrainians officials, President Trump asked the ambassador, “So [Zelenskyy is] going to do the investigation?”, to which the ambassador replied, “He’s going to do it.” (Holmes Depo. at 24; Sondland Testimony on Nov. 20, 2019)
∙President Trump demanded that President Zelenskyy make a public announcement that he was opening an investigation into Biden and the 2016 election as a pre-requisite before he would agree to a White House meeting. (Sondland Opening Statement, Nov. 20, 2019, at 14)
∙President Trump’s personal attorney told both American officials and Ukrainian officials that the president would require, as a quid pro quo, that Ukraine announce the desired investigations before any White House meeting would occur. (Sondland Opening Statement, Nov. 20, 2019, at 14)
∙At a meeting in Warsaw, Poland, the U.S. Ambassador to the European Union informed a senior Ukrainian official that the security assistance money would not be released until Ukraine publicly announced an investigation into “Burisma and 2016.” (Sondland Declaration, Nov. 4, 2019, at 2; Taylor Opening Statement, Oct. 22, 2019, at 10-11; Morrison Depo. at 144-145)

That list is by no means exhaustive. In addition to other testimony before the HPSCI supporting these facts, the Acting Chief of Staff/Director of the Office of Management and Budget Mick Mulvaney stated during a press conference that the security assistance to Ukraine was withheld as a quid pro quo in exchange for Ukraine conducting an investigation into false allegations of Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election.

What then, is there left for the impeachment inquiry to prove?

In the face of this damning and conclusive evidence, the White House and House Republicans have been forced to retreat to their current defense: that President Trump himself has not been proven to have done anything wrong, because there was no witness who testified to having personally heard the President announce that he was seeking a quid pro quo from Ukraine, in exchange for release of the security assistance.

This “defense,” it should be noted, is hardly a defense at all. There is no dispute that the President used the powers of his office to coerce a foreign state into investigating a domestic political rival, nor is there any dispute that the Ukrainians were informed by the Trump administration that the hold on security assistance would not be lifted until these investigation were publicly announced. Multiple witnesses also testified that EU Ambassador Gordon Sondland had told them that, in his conversations with the president, Trump had described his requirement for Zelenskyy to publicly announce the investigations into Biden and 2016. However, to the extent that no witness testified to having personally heard Trump request a quid pro quo in regards to the security assistance, there are two reasons for this.

The first is that, with a single exception, every individual who interacted directly with President Trump refused to comply with House subpoenas for their testimony.

The second is that the single exception who did testify, Ambassador Sondland, did not testify accurately when he said that President Trump had never asked him for a quid pro quo from Ukraine. In fact, President Trump had personally informed Sondland of his specific demands for a quid pro quo from Ukraine – and the White House National Security Council is sitting on documents that confirm it.

I. The “No Quid Pro Quo” Call

Of all the omissions from Ambassador Sondland’s testimony, one of the most significant has to do with his testimony about what has been dubbed the “no quid pro quo” call. Because the White House and State Department did not comply with the House’s subpoenas for records, no documents concerning this call have been produced, but all witnesses agree that, some time around the second week of September, President Trump and Ambassador Sondland had a phone call, and at some point during this call, Trump said the words “no quid pro quo.”

Sondland has, at times, been ambiguous as to when exactly this phone call took place, and has vacillated between the dates of September 6-9. But in the version of events that Sondland most frequently describes in his testimony, he says that he made the “no quid pro quo” call on September 9th. Sondland has testified it was a brief conversation, in which he asked President Trump a single question:


I asked him one open-ended question: What do you want from Ukraine? And as I recall, he was in a very bad mood. It was a very quick conversation. He said: I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo. I want Zelenskyy to do the right thing. (Sondland Depo. at 106)

It is this testimony from Sondland that the White House and House Republicans have clung to, in support of their claim that the impeachment inquiry has failed to show misconduct by the President. ’’

President Trump has taken to regularly invoking Sondland’s testimony at rallies and at press events, asserting that Sondland’s description of the “no quid pro” call exonerates him. In fact, in the middle of Sondland’s public testimony, President Trump made an appearance on the White House lawn, a portion of Sondland’s paraphrased testimony in hand, to perform a dramatic reenactment of the call, as it was described by Sondland.



Overall, it must be noted, Sondland’s testimony was incredibly damning for Trump. However, it was not quite as damning as it should have been.

Because in reality, as shown from the testimony of other witnesses, the “no quid pro quo” call did not take place on September 9th. What’s more, the call was not prompted by any text from Bill Taylor. And lastly, Sondland’s testimony about the “no quid pro quo” call omitted the most important part: the part where President Trump informed Sondland that the security assistance would be at a “stalemate” until President Zelenskyy stood in front of a microphone and personally announced that he was opening an investigation into Trump’s political rivals.

II. The “No Quid Pro Quo” Call Took Place on Sept. 7, Not on Sept. 9

The “no quid pro quo” call did not take place on September 9th, as Sondland claimed at one point in his testimony; instead, it took place on September 7th. This is shown from the testimony of Tim Morrison, Senior Director for European Affairs for the National Security Council, and Charge D’Affaires Bill Taylor, both of whom were briefed on the call by Sondland shortly after it occurred.

This detail is critically important, not because the precise date of the call is significant in and of itself, but because of what it shows about the true content of that call – the substance of the conversation that Morrison and Taylor described in their testimony, and that Sondland omitted from his.

Sondland’s Testimony

Though Ambassador Sondland testified that, to the best of his recollection, the “no quid pro quo” call occurred on September 9th, Sondland was also quick to point out that as a result of his inability to review certain State Department records, his “memory admittedly has not been perfect.” (Sondland Testimony of Nov. 20, 2019) Still, Sondland said he had a distinct reason for remembering the date of this particular call: it was prompted by what Sondland described as a “fairly shocking” and “alarming” text message he received from Charge Taylor, in a group chat that included Ambassador Kurt Volker. It was in response to this text, Sondland said, that Sondland made the call to President Trump:


So rather than ask the President nine different questions – is it this, is it this, is that – I just said what do you want from Ukraine? I may have even used a four letter word. And he said I want nothing, I want no quid pro quo, I just want Zelensky to do the right thing, to do what he ran on or – or words to that effect. (Sondland Testimony of Nov. 20, 2019)

Because Ambassador Volker’s text exchanges were one of the few documentary records produced in response to the HSPCI’s subpoenas, we have a copy of the text exchange Sondland referred to. Per Volker’s records, Taylor’s text was sent at 12:47am on September 9th:

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

The GOP changed its platform to pro-Russia when Trump became the nominee and is now saying it’s basically all good that Russia has invaded and occupied part of Ukraine. Can you really blame their politicians for having an opinion on America’s elections.

So now the move over the last 72 hours has been to conflate criminal interference in an election with having a preference. Yet another way the GOP shows confidence their base won’t see through their lies.

This is why waiting for the next election — the very election Trump is NOW corrupting and will stop at nothing to “win” — is no substitute for impeachment and removal.

Moscow Mitch has transformed the GOP into a cult, he puts party over the needs of the nation and Trump is the cult leader. I sincerely hope blindly following Trump bites them back hard and they loss seats they might not have had they acted differently.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device