Sondland revises Quid Pro Quo testimony

[joaquinmiller]

Gun to his head, I bet he admits he is a Democrat and hence is biased. Party over country.

Boldly speculated.

He did what he was supposed to do when he heard Trump's unAmerican bullshit - he went up the chain of command.

"unAmerican bullshit" is an opinion. Again, do you disagree that he is likely a Democrat? Looking into corruption in the Ukraine is best for the USA.

I think you're speculating that he is a Democrat, and engaging in character assassination when asserting he puts party before country.

You're fucking right it's an opinion that I believe using taxpayer money to extort a personal political favor from a foreign nation is "unAmerican".

#1) He worked for the Bidens as I understand it

And given his job would have been actively involved with them in their 'business' dealings, hence he is a compromised and easily blackmailed 'source' who can't be taken seriously re his opinions, which of course aren't evidence. All they have is biased opinions no evidence, no nothing. They will never get around to that Big Giant Impeachment Vote.

If he is guilty of the QPQ and is impeached and imprisoned, I still want to know if Biden when he was VP used his influence to make his son very wealthy. Do I have that right, yes or no?

Why else would he be dragging the dope head son around with him to foreign countries?

On Vindman:

Alex Vindman’s Impeachment Testimony Rested On His Personal Opinions

"The two portions preceded by my bracketed numbers are Vindman’s opinions. Let’s analyze what he said. It is important to remember that he was not speaking off-the-cuff or just responding to questions. This was a carefully prepared opening statement that had been closely vetted by lawyers and others.

Regarding his first opinion, he says, “I did not think it was proper…” That is pure opinion, not fact. Moreover, if it is improper to ask a foreign government to investigate a U.S. citizen, that would no doubt come as a big surprise to many in government.

Vindman’s statement is, in short, an unfounded and unsupported opinion. And the notion that the president could not properly ask a foreign country to investigate a U.S. citizen who may have engaged in illegal activity is nonsense; Joe Biden does not get a pass from investigation just because he is candidate for the nomination of his party.

There is nothing improper or illegal about an investigation into potentially illegal actions, much less anything that rises to the level of a high crime or misdemeanor. The notion that it does is so much tommyrot.

So, absent personal knowledge of a high crime or misdemeanor, Vindman’s first personal opinion is immaterial. I think most voters not swirling around in the vortex of Trump hatred care more about the opinions of the president and the secretary of State than those of a mid-level officer, at least on this topic.

Vindman’s second opinion is that if Ukraine investigated the Bidens as President Trump suggested, it would lose the support of Democrats in Congress. That may well be, but in addition to being a personal opinion, it is a pure political concern. It is properly the concern of the presidents of the United States and of Ukraine.

If he disagrees with the president’s approach and harbors a fear that Ukraine will lose Democrat votes if it investigates the Bidens, Vindman’s proper role is to give his best advice and then shut up. His proper role is not to volunteer to go before a congressional committee and complain about why he disagrees with the president."

... and more at the link. This is just a weasel who found himself being squeezed by politics and covering his own ass; what he feels guilty about is anyone's guess, mine being is he's worried about what Democrats may have on him personally.

Have you given thought to how many people you're going to need to smear?

 

[Mac-7]

Hillary lost

Its time for liberals to get over losing an election

It's time for Trumpkins to quit thinking that's what it's all about. That doesn't absolve Trump of jack.

You wish we were that easily fooled
But we see right through the liberal lies

You are that easily-fooled. Look at the reality TV star you support.

What a clever retort

thats all liberals have to offer is insults

dont think this will be finished when trump leaves office

Sore losers the left are breeding hate toward themselves that will never go away

 

[hadit]

Ever notice that when your testimony agrees with the agenda of the committee chair that you're often allowed another chance to make your testimony more agreeable to the committee chair?

Conversely, if it doesn't agree with his agenda, anything you got wrong is likely to wind up costing you big time.

Ever notice that with exposure to a Perjury charge, one is more amenable to amending a statement?

The problem lies in who is allowed to amend their testimony and who is summarily yanked from their home in the pre-dawn darkness.

That's best considered before the act.

Naturally, but we're talking about what happens when someone is testifying under oath and the unequal ways justice is applied.

 

[joaquinmiller]

Hillary lost

Its time for liberals to get over losing an election

It's time for Trumpkins to quit thinking that's what it's all about. That doesn't absolve Trump of jack.

You wish we were that easily fooled
But we see right through the liberal lies

You are that easily-fooled. Look at the reality TV star you support.

What a clever retort

thats all liberals have to offer is insults

dont think this will be finished when trump leaves office

Sore losers the left are breeding hate toward themselves that will never go away

The Left is responsible for your hate?

 

[g5000]

Boldly speculated.

He did what he was supposed to do when he heard Trump's unAmerican bullshit - he went up the chain of command.

"unAmerican bullshit" is an opinion. Again, do you disagree that he is likely a Democrat? Looking into corruption in the Ukraine is best for the USA.

I think you're speculating that he is a Democrat, and engaging in character assassination when asserting he puts party before country.

You're fucking right it's an opinion that I believe using taxpayer money to extort a personal political favor from a foreign nation is "unAmerican".

#1) He worked for the Bidens as I understand it

And given his job would have been actively involved with them in their 'business' dealings, hence he is a compromised and easily blackmailed 'source' who can't be taken seriously re his opinions, which of course aren't evidence. All they have is biased opinions no evidence, no nothing. They will never get around to that Big Giant Impeachment Vote.

If he is guilty of the QPQ and is impeached and imprisoned, I still want to know if Biden when he was VP used his influence to make his son very wealthy. Do I have that right, yes or no?

Why else would he be dragging the dope head son around with him to foreign countries?

On Vindman:

Alex Vindman’s Impeachment Testimony Rested On His Personal Opinions

"The two portions preceded by my bracketed numbers are Vindman’s opinions. Let’s analyze what he said. It is important to remember that he was not speaking off-the-cuff or just responding to questions. This was a carefully prepared opening statement that had been closely vetted by lawyers and others.

Regarding his first opinion, he says, “I did not think it was proper…” That is pure opinion, not fact. Moreover, if it is improper to ask a foreign government to investigate a U.S. citizen, that would no doubt come as a big surprise to many in government.

Vindman’s statement is, in short, an unfounded and unsupported opinion. And the notion that the president could not properly ask a foreign country to investigate a U.S. citizen who may have engaged in illegal activity is nonsense; Joe Biden does not get a pass from investigation just because he is candidate for the nomination of his party.

There is nothing improper or illegal about an investigation into potentially illegal actions, much less anything that rises to the level of a high crime or misdemeanor. The notion that it does is so much tommyrot.

So, absent personal knowledge of a high crime or misdemeanor, Vindman’s first personal opinion is immaterial. I think most voters not swirling around in the vortex of Trump hatred care more about the opinions of the president and the secretary of State than those of a mid-level officer, at least on this topic.

Vindman’s second opinion is that if Ukraine investigated the Bidens as President Trump suggested, it would lose the support of Democrats in Congress. That may well be, but in addition to being a personal opinion, it is a pure political concern. It is properly the concern of the presidents of the United States and of Ukraine.

If he disagrees with the president’s approach and harbors a fear that Ukraine will lose Democrat votes if it investigates the Bidens, Vindman’s proper role is to give his best advice and then shut up. His proper role is not to volunteer to go before a congressional committee and complain about why he disagrees with the president."

... and more at the link. This is just a weasel who found himself being squeezed by politics and covering his own ass; what he feels guilty about is anyone's guess, mine being is he's worried about what Democrats may have on him personally.

Have you given thought to how many people you're going to need to smear?

This is the post of the week.

 

[joaquinmiller]

Ever notice that when your testimony agrees with the agenda of the committee chair that you're often allowed another chance to make your testimony more agreeable to the committee chair?

Conversely, if it doesn't agree with his agenda, anything you got wrong is likely to wind up costing you big time.

Ever notice that with exposure to a Perjury charge, one is more amenable to amending a statement?

The problem lies in who is allowed to amend their testimony and who is summarily yanked from their home in the pre-dawn darkness.

That's best considered before the act.

Naturally, but we're talking about what happens when someone is testifying under oath and the unequal ways justice is applied.

Do you have a particular someone or something in mind?

 

[Mac-7]

Hillary lost

Its time for liberals to get over losing an election

It's time for Trumpkins to quit thinking that's what it's all about. That doesn't absolve Trump of jack.

You wish we were that easily fooled
But we see right through the liberal lies

You are that easily-fooled. Look at the reality TV star you support.

/----/ "You are that easily-fooled. Look at the reality TV star you support."
Which corrupt, self-serving, career democRAT candidate do you support?

I haven't made up my mind which self-serving Democrat I'll support.

Do you figure the guy who sold the EU Ambassadorship to an amateur is draining the swamp?

Hillary lost

Its time for liberals to get over losing an election

It's time for Trumpkins to quit thinking that's what it's all about. That doesn't absolve Trump of jack.

You wish we were that easily fooled
But we see right through the liberal lies

You are that easily-fooled. Look at the reality TV star you support.

What a clever retort

thats all liberals have to offer is insults

dont think this will be finished when trump leaves office

Sore losers the left are breeding hate toward themselves that will never go away

The Left is responsible for your hate?

yes

 

[joaquinmiller]

"unAmerican bullshit" is an opinion. Again, do you disagree that he is likely a Democrat? Looking into corruption in the Ukraine is best for the USA.

I think you're speculating that he is a Democrat, and engaging in character assassination when asserting he puts party before country.

You're fucking right it's an opinion that I believe using taxpayer money to extort a personal political favor from a foreign nation is "unAmerican".

#1) He worked for the Bidens as I understand it

And given his job would have been actively involved with them in their 'business' dealings, hence he is a compromised and easily blackmailed 'source' who can't be taken seriously re his opinions, which of course aren't evidence. All they have is biased opinions no evidence, no nothing. They will never get around to that Big Giant Impeachment Vote.

If he is guilty of the QPQ and is impeached and imprisoned, I still want to know if Biden when he was VP used his influence to make his son very wealthy. Do I have that right, yes or no?

Why else would he be dragging the dope head son around with him to foreign countries?

On Vindman:

Alex Vindman’s Impeachment Testimony Rested On His Personal Opinions

"The two portions preceded by my bracketed numbers are Vindman’s opinions. Let’s analyze what he said. It is important to remember that he was not speaking off-the-cuff or just responding to questions. This was a carefully prepared opening statement that had been closely vetted by lawyers and others.

Regarding his first opinion, he says, “I did not think it was proper…” That is pure opinion, not fact. Moreover, if it is improper to ask a foreign government to investigate a U.S. citizen, that would no doubt come as a big surprise to many in government.

Vindman’s statement is, in short, an unfounded and unsupported opinion. And the notion that the president could not properly ask a foreign country to investigate a U.S. citizen who may have engaged in illegal activity is nonsense; Joe Biden does not get a pass from investigation just because he is candidate for the nomination of his party.

There is nothing improper or illegal about an investigation into potentially illegal actions, much less anything that rises to the level of a high crime or misdemeanor. The notion that it does is so much tommyrot.

So, absent personal knowledge of a high crime or misdemeanor, Vindman’s first personal opinion is immaterial. I think most voters not swirling around in the vortex of Trump hatred care more about the opinions of the president and the secretary of State than those of a mid-level officer, at least on this topic.

Vindman’s second opinion is that if Ukraine investigated the Bidens as President Trump suggested, it would lose the support of Democrats in Congress. That may well be, but in addition to being a personal opinion, it is a pure political concern. It is properly the concern of the presidents of the United States and of Ukraine.

If he disagrees with the president’s approach and harbors a fear that Ukraine will lose Democrat votes if it investigates the Bidens, Vindman’s proper role is to give his best advice and then shut up. His proper role is not to volunteer to go before a congressional committee and complain about why he disagrees with the president."

... and more at the link. This is just a weasel who found himself being squeezed by politics and covering his own ass; what he feels guilty about is anyone's guess, mine being is he's worried about what Democrats may have on him personally.

Have you given thought to how many people you're going to need to smear?

This is the post of the week.

Trump is innocent because Democrat! You and I are slow.

 

[hadit]

Ever notice that when your testimony agrees with the agenda of the committee chair that you're often allowed another chance to make your testimony more agreeable to the committee chair?

Conversely, if it doesn't agree with his agenda, anything you got wrong is likely to wind up costing you big time.

Ever notice that with exposure to a Perjury charge, one is more amenable to amending a statement?

The problem lies in who is allowed to amend their testimony and who is summarily yanked from their home in the pre-dawn darkness.

That's best considered before the act.

Naturally, but we're talking about what happens when someone is testifying under oath and the unequal ways justice is applied.

Do you have a particular someone or something in mind?

Not really. The OP triggered the thought. If some are allowed to "revise" their testimony, everyone should be.

 

[joaquinmiller]

Ever notice that with exposure to a Perjury charge, one is more amenable to amending a statement?

The problem lies in who is allowed to amend their testimony and who is summarily yanked from their home in the pre-dawn darkness.

That's best considered before the act.

Naturally, but we're talking about what happens when someone is testifying under oath and the unequal ways justice is applied.

Do you have a particular someone or something in mind?

Not really. The OP triggered the thought. If some are allowed to "revise" their testimony, everyone should be.

If someone isn't allowed, that would provide substance to the thought.

 

[Picaro]

Boldly speculated.

He did what he was supposed to do when he heard Trump's unAmerican bullshit - he went up the chain of command.

"unAmerican bullshit" is an opinion. Again, do you disagree that he is likely a Democrat? Looking into corruption in the Ukraine is best for the USA.

I think you're speculating that he is a Democrat, and engaging in character assassination when asserting he puts party before country.

You're fucking right it's an opinion that I believe using taxpayer money to extort a personal political favor from a foreign nation is "unAmerican".

#1) He worked for the Bidens as I understand it

And given his job would have been actively involved with them in their 'business' dealings, hence he is a compromised and easily blackmailed 'source' who can't be taken seriously re his opinions, which of course aren't evidence. All they have is biased opinions no evidence, no nothing. They will never get around to that Big Giant Impeachment Vote.

If he is guilty of the QPQ and is impeached and imprisoned, I still want to know if Biden when he was VP used his influence to make his son very wealthy. Do I have that right, yes or no?

Why else would he be dragging the dope head son around with him to foreign countries?

On Vindman:

Alex Vindman’s Impeachment Testimony Rested On His Personal Opinions

"The two portions preceded by my bracketed numbers are Vindman’s opinions. Let’s analyze what he said. It is important to remember that he was not speaking off-the-cuff or just responding to questions. This was a carefully prepared opening statement that had been closely vetted by lawyers and others.

Regarding his first opinion, he says, “I did not think it was proper…” That is pure opinion, not fact. Moreover, if it is improper to ask a foreign government to investigate a U.S. citizen, that would no doubt come as a big surprise to many in government.

Vindman’s statement is, in short, an unfounded and unsupported opinion. And the notion that the president could not properly ask a foreign country to investigate a U.S. citizen who may have engaged in illegal activity is nonsense; Joe Biden does not get a pass from investigation just because he is candidate for the nomination of his party.

There is nothing improper or illegal about an investigation into potentially illegal actions, much less anything that rises to the level of a high crime or misdemeanor. The notion that it does is so much tommyrot.

So, absent personal knowledge of a high crime or misdemeanor, Vindman’s first personal opinion is immaterial. I think most voters not swirling around in the vortex of Trump hatred care more about the opinions of the president and the secretary of State than those of a mid-level officer, at least on this topic.

Vindman’s second opinion is that if Ukraine investigated the Bidens as President Trump suggested, it would lose the support of Democrats in Congress. That may well be, but in addition to being a personal opinion, it is a pure political concern. It is properly the concern of the presidents of the United States and of Ukraine.

If he disagrees with the president’s approach and harbors a fear that Ukraine will lose Democrat votes if it investigates the Bidens, Vindman’s proper role is to give his best advice and then shut up. His proper role is not to volunteer to go before a congressional committee and complain about why he disagrees with the president."

... and more at the link. This is just a weasel who found himself being squeezed by politics and covering his own ass; what he feels guilty about is anyone's guess, mine being is he's worried about what Democrats may have on him personally.

Have you given thought to how many people you're going to need to smear?

Pointing out people are dishonest and you shills have no evidence isn't' smearing'; what you scum do is smearing. We only need to point out you're sociopaths and liars, is all. You will do the rest, as you've done for three years now, never to ever gain back any credibility.

 

[joaquinmiller]

"unAmerican bullshit" is an opinion. Again, do you disagree that he is likely a Democrat? Looking into corruption in the Ukraine is best for the USA.

I think you're speculating that he is a Democrat, and engaging in character assassination when asserting he puts party before country.

You're fucking right it's an opinion that I believe using taxpayer money to extort a personal political favor from a foreign nation is "unAmerican".

#1) He worked for the Bidens as I understand it

And given his job would have been actively involved with them in their 'business' dealings, hence he is a compromised and easily blackmailed 'source' who can't be taken seriously re his opinions, which of course aren't evidence. All they have is biased opinions no evidence, no nothing. They will never get around to that Big Giant Impeachment Vote.

If he is guilty of the QPQ and is impeached and imprisoned, I still want to know if Biden when he was VP used his influence to make his son very wealthy. Do I have that right, yes or no?

Why else would he be dragging the dope head son around with him to foreign countries?

On Vindman:

Alex Vindman’s Impeachment Testimony Rested On His Personal Opinions

"The two portions preceded by my bracketed numbers are Vindman’s opinions. Let’s analyze what he said. It is important to remember that he was not speaking off-the-cuff or just responding to questions. This was a carefully prepared opening statement that had been closely vetted by lawyers and others.

Regarding his first opinion, he says, “I did not think it was proper…” That is pure opinion, not fact. Moreover, if it is improper to ask a foreign government to investigate a U.S. citizen, that would no doubt come as a big surprise to many in government.

Vindman’s statement is, in short, an unfounded and unsupported opinion. And the notion that the president could not properly ask a foreign country to investigate a U.S. citizen who may have engaged in illegal activity is nonsense; Joe Biden does not get a pass from investigation just because he is candidate for the nomination of his party.

There is nothing improper or illegal about an investigation into potentially illegal actions, much less anything that rises to the level of a high crime or misdemeanor. The notion that it does is so much tommyrot.

So, absent personal knowledge of a high crime or misdemeanor, Vindman’s first personal opinion is immaterial. I think most voters not swirling around in the vortex of Trump hatred care more about the opinions of the president and the secretary of State than those of a mid-level officer, at least on this topic.

Vindman’s second opinion is that if Ukraine investigated the Bidens as President Trump suggested, it would lose the support of Democrats in Congress. That may well be, but in addition to being a personal opinion, it is a pure political concern. It is properly the concern of the presidents of the United States and of Ukraine.

If he disagrees with the president’s approach and harbors a fear that Ukraine will lose Democrat votes if it investigates the Bidens, Vindman’s proper role is to give his best advice and then shut up. His proper role is not to volunteer to go before a congressional committee and complain about why he disagrees with the president."

... and more at the link. This is just a weasel who found himself being squeezed by politics and covering his own ass; what he feels guilty about is anyone's guess, mine being is he's worried about what Democrats may have on him personally.

Have you given thought to how many people you're going to need to smear?

Pointing out people are dishonest and you shills have no evidence isn't' smearing'; what you scum do is smearing. We only need to point out you're sociopaths and liars, is all. You will do the rest, as you've done for three years now, never to ever gain back any credibility.

Dude! It wasn't my hand-picked Ambassador who testified, before Congress, that he delivered a quid-pro-quo demand to Andriy Yermak, top aide to Ukraine's President Zelensky. No need to assassinate my character because the Object of Your Affection screwed the pooch.

 

[OKTexas]

Sondland Updates Impeachment Testimony, Describing Ukraine Quid Pro Quo Sondland Updates Impeachment Testimony, Describing Ukraine Quid Pro Quo

Is that the walls closing in on the White House?

Sondlands update had to do with a Sept. meeting, had nothing to do with the time frame of the Jul. call. You commie got nothing.

.

 

[joaquinmiller]

Sondland Updates Impeachment Testimony, Describing Ukraine Quid Pro Quo Sondland Updates Impeachment Testimony, Describing Ukraine Quid Pro Quo

Is that the walls closing in on the White House?

Sondlands update had to do with a Sept. meeting, had nothing to do with the time frame of the Jul. call. You commie got nothing.

.

Yep, that quid pro quo demand came well before the aid was released. That's what you meant, isn't it?

 

[sealybobo]

Sondland Updates Impeachment Testimony, Describing Ukraine Quid Pro Quo Sondland Updates Impeachment Testimony, Describing Ukraine Quid Pro Quo

Is that the walls closing in on the White House?

Republicans will argue no matter how bad the evidence is against trump

No evidence has been produced, silly.

1) In Feb Congress approved aid for Ukraine. Trump withheld this aid for 7 months, then all of sudden released it 2 days after the story broke.

2) War hero Col Vindman, Ambassador Taylor, and now Trump loyalists Sondland have all said there was a Quid Pro Quo, WITH text message evidence between Sondland and other people involved to verify that. - with Sondland also now verifying it.

3)Trump did not release the official transcript of the Ukraine call, his lawyer hid it on the NICE server that is reserved for top secret material. Trump staffers said it was unheard of to put a simple presidential call on the NICE server. ...unless you were trying to hide something.



Why would Trump be hiding a "perfect" call and war hero Col Vindman testified under oath that the transcript Trump released was not accurate, clearly Trump is hiding something. The are too many people that have come forward and said there was a Quid Pro Quo, and Sondland is the final nail in the coffin. The evidence is overwhelming.

And it would be ok if Trump was quid pro quoing the Ukraine on behalf of the USA. So he could say, "Do this for the USA or we will hold up the money".

What Trump can't do is abuse his power and extort another country into going along with his lies about his political opponents.

 

[OKTexas]

Sondland Updates Impeachment Testimony, Describing Ukraine Quid Pro Quo Sondland Updates Impeachment Testimony, Describing Ukraine Quid Pro Quo

Is that the walls closing in on the White House?

Sondlands update had to do with a Sept. meeting, had nothing to do with the time frame of the Jul. call. You commie got nothing.

.

Yep, that quid pro quo demand came well before the aid was released. That's what you meant, isn't it?

Did it??????????? Did I???????? You seem to be the mind reader.

The FACTS ARE, the aid was released in Sept. and no statement was issued by Ukraine.

More facts are coming out concerning the Bidens and the Ukraine ambassador also. During conformation prep the Ambassador was told, if questioned about Hunter Biden, to refer the questioner to the office of the VP. Also shortly after the raid on the owner of Burisma, attorneys for Burisma were contacting the State Dept asking for assistance to help remove the investigations into Burisma. The attorneys invoked Hunter Bidens name as a board member of the company. More is coming from the State Dept as FOIA information is released. I wonder if those attorneys registered as foreign agents? So many questions yet to be answered, maybe the Senate Foreign Relations committee will take it up.

.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Again let’s say there was a QPQ do you people want to know what happened with the Bidens or not? Simple yes or no question.

 

[joaquinmiller]

Sondland Updates Impeachment Testimony, Describing Ukraine Quid Pro Quo Sondland Updates Impeachment Testimony, Describing Ukraine Quid Pro Quo

Is that the walls closing in on the White House?

Sondlands update had to do with a Sept. meeting, had nothing to do with the time frame of the Jul. call. You commie got nothing.

.

Yep, that quid pro quo demand came well before the aid was released. That's what you meant, isn't it?

Did it??????????? Did I???????? You seem to be the mind reader.

The FACTS ARE, the aid was released in Sept. and no statement was issued by Ukraine.

More facts are coming out concerning the Bidens and the Ukraine ambassador also. During conformation prep the Ambassador was told, if questioned about Hunter Biden, to refer the questioner to the office of the VP. Also shortly after the raid on the owner of Burisma, attorneys for Burisma were contacting the State Dept asking for assistance to help remove the investigations into Burisma. The attorneys invoked Hunter Bidens name as a board member of the company. More is coming from the State Dept as FOIA information is released. I wonder if those attorneys registered as foreign agents? So many questions yet to be answered, maybe the Senate Foreign Relations committee will take it up.

.

You're half-right. I read, but not minds. The aid was released on September 11, after pressure from Republicans and news on Politico. After it became public, it became untenable.

 

[joaquinmiller]

Again let’s say there was a QPQ do you people want to know what happened with the Bidens or not? Simple yes or no question.

Be patient. I think Lev Parnas will clear that up for you.

Too flippant? Okay.

Yes, we want the truth about the Bidens, and who better to get it for us than the President's personal attorney and his merry band of miscreants? And how could we make it any more reliable than by offering $391 million for the absolute, as 391-million-dollars-is-my-witness truth?

Another simple question: What was the purpose of demanding a public statement as to an investigation?

 

[Cellblock2429]

Again let’s say there was a QPQ do you people want to know what happened with the Bidens or not? Simple yes or no question.

/——/ Looks like Shytface is walking back on the QPQ and now going with bribery and extortion. Well, everything else has gone bust.