The Guy Trump Cited as Proof There Wasn’t a Quid Pro Quo Just Said There Was a Quid Pro Quo

[90DayFinancier 910]

The Guy Trump Cited as Proof There Wasn’t a Quid Pro Quo Just Said There Was a Quid Pro Quo

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/gordon-sondland-testifies-quid-pro-quo-908454/

"I said that resumption of the U.S. aid would likely not occur until Ukraine provided the public anticorruption statement that we had been discussing for many weeks,” Sondland says in his new testimony, referring to a conversation he had with Andriy Yermak, a top adviser to Zelensky.

Edited November 6, 2019 by 90DayFinancier

[laylalex 7,284]

Whoops! I hate when that happens. 

[90DayFinancier 910]

1 hour ago, laylalex said:

Whoops! I hate when that happens. 

I feel bad for anyone in Trump's reach...he is a walking disaster area. The hotels that this Sondland has in Oregon are suffering because of this.

[TBoneTX 45,273]

Someone got to the guy.  Wonder if Arkancide was threatened?

 

What gets me is that none of these "testifiers" have anything to offer but their opinions, clouded by sour grapes that their exalted, unelected selves are not running U.S. foreign policy.

Edited November 6, 2019 by TBoneTX

[Dashinka 24,492]

Did anyone actually read the full Sondland transcript or just rely on the Democrat/media spin?

 

https://www.scribd.com/document/433585677/Sondland-Transcript

Edited November 6, 2019 by Bill & Katya

[90DayFinancier 910]

3 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

Did anyone actually read the full Sondland transcript or just rely on the Democrat/media spin?

 

https://www.scribd.com/document/433585677/Sondland-Transcript

I did not read the first one or the second one. What stood out for you?

[Dashinka 24,492]

27 minutes ago, 90DayFinancier said:

I did not read the first one or the second one. What stood out for you?

The fact that President Trump explicitly said he did not want a quid pro quo when directly asked.  Whether Sondland in his own opinion thought otherwise is really irrelevant.

[90DayFinancier 910]

11 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

The fact that President Trump explicitly said he did not want a quid pro quo when directly asked.  Whether Sondland in his own opinion thought otherwise is really irrelevant.

So the president expressly was aware that he did not want a quid pro quo, did he understand what that means? 

[Dashinka 24,492]

1 minute ago, 90DayFinancier said:

So the president expressly was aware that he did not want a quid pro quo, did he understand what that means? 

You will have to ask him.

[90DayFinancier 910]

35 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

You will have to ask him.

Fat chance of that happening, he is stonewalling every witness to the event. Do you think he will come to the house and testify? He would only speak to Mueller on paper.

 

It seems to me as an outsider that after narrowly dodging the bullet from 2016 election, the President would go out of his way to avoid the appearance of entanglements of this type. Last time he surrounded himself with poor choices in staff and he and his family seemed uneducated about the law and ethics around elections.

 

He should have learned from that event but instead doubles down.

 

 

The job of the executive is to set the tone, of all my criticisms of the man, this one stands out: he cannot make a course correction but keeps returning to his prior understanding of the world, and that understanding appears to be based in a 1950s view of the world. 

Edited November 6, 2019 by 90DayFinancier

[Dashinka 24,492]

30 minutes ago, 90DayFinancier said:

Fat chance of that happening, he is stonewalling every witness to the event. Do you think he will come to the house and testify? He would only speak to Mueller on paper.

 

It seems to me as an outsider that after narrowly dodging the bullet from 2016 election, the President would go out of his way to avoid the appearance of entanglements of this type. Last time he surrounded himself with poor choices in staff and he and his family seemed uneducated about the law and ethics around elections.

 

He should have learned from that event but instead doubles down.

 

 

The job of the executive is to set the tone, of all my criticisms of the man, this one stands out: he cannot make a course correction but keeps returning to his prior understanding of the world, and that understanding appears to be based in a 1950s view of the world. 

Yes, the last President we had set a very good tone while the whole time using executive branch departments for political gain.  Which one is better?

 

President Trump does not have to cooperate with the House investigation, and if I were his lawyer I would certainly advise fighting anytime from Adam Schiff particularly since it simply a political fishing expedition.

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,370]

Yawn  So which  time was he telling the truth ?

 

[laylalex 7,284]

3 minutes ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

Yawn  So which  time was he telling the truth ?

 

I kind of think he's probably seeing he's on a sinking ship and he wants to get off before they slap him with a perjury charge, if I am reading all of this correctly. 

 

9 hours ago, TBoneTX said:

clouded by sour grapes that their exalted, unelected selves are not running U.S. foreign policy.

What, like Rudy?  Oh wait, he IS running U.S. foreign policy as an unelected person. Whoops!

[cyclone27 710]

Sinking ship? Doubtful since the Senate will never convict.

 

An impeachment most likely means re-election. 

[laylalex 7,284]

2 minutes ago, cyclone27 said:

Sinking ship? Doubtful since the Senate will never convict.

 

An impeachment most likely means re-election. 

A sinking ship doesn't mean conviction, necessarily. It could mean loss at the polls as well.The numbers are not great right now for Trump, but things can change. We saw that the last time. 

 

And as for it most likely meaning re-election, I don't think that's something anyone can say with even that much definitiveness. We are still in the investigation stage. Things are still coming out, every day. We don't know what will happen before an impeachment vote. I think it's better to say watch this space.