Sondland revises Quid Pro Quo testimony

[Jitss617]

Unsupportable nonsense.

It's obvious. How much more obvious does it have to get?

Cite your sources and quote the evidence.

Google House of Representatives. That's my source.

And no amount of evidence will convince you so why would I even bother? Fact is 55% of independents think he should be impeached. 40% say not. 5% are living under rocks.

Trump sets foreign diplomacy,, not libtards lol

Trump doesn't know foreign policy from guacamole.

Cool story,, who did you vote for? Lol

 

[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.

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?

You answer me and I'll answer you. Don't be snide.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Until he got something PERSONALLY.

Unsupportable nonsense.

It's obvious. How much more obvious does it have to get?

Cite your sources and quote the evidence.

Google House of Representatives. That's my source.

And no amount of evidence will convince you so why would I even bother? Fact is 55% of independents think he should be impeached. 40% say not. 5% are living under rocks.

Trump sets foreign diplomacy,, not libtards lol

Indeed - and disagreement by a member of the executive branch on a foreign policy position or action set by the President is not am impeachable offense.
Trump: "We're going to do this"
Member of the executive branch: "I think this is a bad idea"
Democrats: "IMPEACH HIM!!!!!"

 

[OKTexas]

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.

And?????

Funny how you just ignored the information about the Bidens and the ambassador. It's all been verified by the State Dept, with more to come. Are you afraid to admit there might be a reason for the ambassador being fired and the Bidens investigated?

.

.

I'm sorry, I didn't take it seriously.

Edit - I should have added that notice of the Whistleblower Complaint was given to Congress two days before Trump released the aid.

And????? They had to the end of Sept. to do it. Also like I said everything was verified by the State Dept.

.

 

[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?

You answer me and I'll answer you. Don't be snide.

I answered you. "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?" If you don't like my answer, that's up to you.

I don't expect an answer from you. I've asked you the question before.

 

[The Banker]

We know what laws trump broke and we know the evidence against him is overwhelming,

Cites for both, please.

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.
Vindman testified he believed Trump demanded quid pro quo for Ukrainian aid: report
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...59b3b8-ffec-11e9-9518-1e76abc088b6_story.html
US diplomat Bill Taylor directly ties Trump to Ukraine quid pro quo - CNNPolitics

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.
Vindman says White House omitted Trump's reference to Biden tapes in transcript of Zelensky call - CNNPolitics
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...0fbdb6-fb4e-11e9-8190-6be4deb56e01_story.html

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. Why are they hiding the official call transcript on the NICE server. The evidence is overwhelming.

 

[M14 Shooter]

We know what laws trump broke and we know the evidence against him is overwhelming,

Cites for both, please.

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.

What does this prove?

2) War hero Col Vindman, Ambassador Taylor, and now Trump loyalists Sondland have all said there was a Quid Pro Quo,

-Quote- the text.

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.

What does this prove?

 

[sealybobo]

Until he got something PERSONALLY.

Unsupportable nonsense.

It's obvious. How much more obvious does it have to get?

Cite your sources and quote the evidence.

Google House of Representatives. That's my source.

And no amount of evidence will convince you so why would I even bother? Fact is 55% of independents think he should be impeached. 40% say not. 5% are living under rocks.

Trump sets foreign diplomacy,, not libtards lol

Trump sets illegal foreign policies.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Unsupportable nonsense.

It's obvious. How much more obvious does it have to get?

Cite your sources and quote the evidence.

Google House of Representatives. That's my source.
And no amount of evidence will convince you so why would I even bother? Fact is 55% of independents think he should be impeached. 40% say not. 5% are living under rocks.

Trump sets foreign diplomacy,, not libtards lol

Trump sets illegal foreign policies.

More unsupportable nonsense.

 

[sealybobo]

It's obvious. How much more obvious does it have to get?

Cite your sources and quote the evidence.

Google House of Representatives. That's my source.

And no amount of evidence will convince you so why would I even bother? Fact is 55% of independents think he should be impeached. 40% say not. 5% are living under rocks.

Trump sets foreign diplomacy,, not libtards lol

Trump doesn't know foreign policy from guacamole.

Cool story,, who did you vote for? Lol

I voted for Trump but I would never vote for him again. Not after all the lies and bad policies he passed and those bad judge appointments. He's been an embarrassment.

Just like you guys can claim you aren't Republicans, I'm not a democrat. I gave Trump a chance and he let us down bigly. He's so embarrassing and corrupt.

Cool story huh?

 

[Jitss617]

Unsupportable nonsense.

It's obvious. How much more obvious does it have to get?

Cite your sources and quote the evidence.

Google House of Representatives. That's my source.

And no amount of evidence will convince you so why would I even bother? Fact is 55% of independents think he should be impeached. 40% say not. 5% are living under rocks.

Trump sets foreign diplomacy,, not libtards lol

Trump sets illegal foreign policies.

You sound angry lol

 

[sealybobo]

It's obvious. How much more obvious does it have to get?

Cite your sources and quote the evidence.

Google House of Representatives. That's my source.
And no amount of evidence will convince you so why would I even bother? Fact is 55% of independents think he should be impeached. 40% say not. 5% are living under rocks.

Trump sets foreign diplomacy,, not libtards lol

Trump sets illegal foreign policies.

More unsupportable nonsense.

What more do you want? 2 weeks ago it was a perfect phone call. The next week we find out Trump tried to hide the call.

There is so much evidence I wouldn't even know where to begin. It'd be like asking Ron Goldman's family what evidence they have that OJ did it.

 

[sealybobo]

It's obvious. How much more obvious does it have to get?

Cite your sources and quote the evidence.

Google House of Representatives. That's my source.

And no amount of evidence will convince you so why would I even bother? Fact is 55% of independents think he should be impeached. 40% say not. 5% are living under rocks.

Trump sets foreign diplomacy,, not libtards lol

Trump sets illegal foreign policies.

You sound angry lol

Yes, very angry. Angry enough to vote Trump out. Cool story, Democrats won in red states last night. And we won in Midterms. Trump and you are in for a bigly loss next year.

I should end every post with a LOL so you don't think I'm angry.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Cite your sources and quote the evidence.

Google House of Representatives. That's my source.

And no amount of evidence will convince you so why would I even bother? Fact is 55% of independents think he should be impeached. 40% say not. 5% are living under rocks.

Trump sets foreign diplomacy,, not libtards lol

Trump doesn't know foreign policy from guacamole.

Cool story,, who did you vote for? Lol

I voted for Trump....

Didn't happen.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Cite your sources and quote the evidence.

Google House of Representatives. That's my source.
And no amount of evidence will convince you so why would I even bother? Fact is 55% of independents think he should be impeached. 40% say not. 5% are living under rocks.

Trump sets foreign diplomacy,, not libtards lol

Trump sets illegal foreign policies.

More unsupportable nonsense.

What more do you want?

Proof of your claim that Trump sets illegal foreign policies.
For that you have to specify a foreign policy point and prove that said policy was illegal.
Cite your sources and quote the text.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Cite your sources and quote the evidence.

Google House of Representatives. That's my source.
And no amount of evidence will convince you so why would I even bother? Fact is 55% of independents think he should be impeached. 40% say not. 5% are living under rocks.

Trump sets foreign diplomacy,, not libtards lol

Trump sets illegal foreign policies.

You sound angry lol

Yes, very angry. Angry enough to vote Trump out. Cool story, Democrats won in red states last night. And we won in Midterms

"We'?
Didn't you just say you aren't a Democrat?
Why did you lie?

 

[sealybobo]

It's obvious. How much more obvious does it have to get?

Cite your sources and quote the evidence.

Google House of Representatives. That's my source.
And no amount of evidence will convince you so why would I even bother? Fact is 55% of independents think he should be impeached. 40% say not. 5% are living under rocks.

Trump sets foreign diplomacy,, not libtards lol

Trump sets illegal foreign policies.

More unsupportable nonsense.

You guys gave us all the evidence we need.

Trump wants people to read one of the most damning pieces of evidence against him in the impeachment inquiry.

• Donald Trump's latest defense in the impeachment inquiry is to call on people to "read the transcipt
  
  • But legal experts say the transcript, which is actually a summary of the call and not a verbatim record, is one of the most damning pieces of evidence against Trump.
    
    • "This is not hearsay, these are his own words," Asha Rangappa, a lawyer and former FBI special agent told Insider. "What we hear him doing is using congressional authorized aid as personal leverage for an election benefit."

• Trump is trying to "normalize the call" and his insistence that the conversation was "perfect" amounts to a "Jedi mind trick."

President Donald Trump has echoed this over and over in recent days while continuing to insist he's done nothing wrong amid the escalating impeachment inquiry.

legal experts say it's an extremely damning piece of evidence and that releasing it could be the biggest mistake the administration has made in the escalating scandal.

The document, which contrary to Trump's characterization is not a verbatim transcript but a summary of the call, shows Trump urging a foreign leader to investigate a top political rival. This could constitute an abuse of power that undermines US national security.

The so-called transcript is also corroborated by other documents and witness testimony in the impeachment inquiry that Trump has sought to discredit. To put it another way, Trump handed investigators evidence that could potentially be instrumental in him becoming the third president to be impeached.

 

[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?

You answer me and I'll answer you. Don't be snide.

Let me try that more gently. The 'truth' about the Bidens doesn't scare me. Is it necessary for me to pretend Giuliani and his criminally-charged cohort was on a quest for truth? Seriously?

I think that was reasonably un-snide.

 

[sealybobo]

Google House of Representatives. That's my source.
And no amount of evidence will convince you so why would I even bother? Fact is 55% of independents think he should be impeached. 40% say not. 5% are living under rocks.

Trump sets foreign diplomacy,, not libtards lol

Trump sets illegal foreign policies.

You sound angry lol

Yes, very angry. Angry enough to vote Trump out. Cool story, Democrats won in red states last night. And we won in Midterms

"We'?
Didn't you just say you aren't a Democrat?
Why did you lie?

I'm mocking people here who are clearly Republicans but claim to not be Republicans.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Its still just 2nd hand opinion

False. Firsthand.

Ok

firsthand OPINION

same same

Right. Witness opinions. All, by the way, public servants with infinitely more credibility and integrity than the orange turd's entire family has put together.