Sondland revises Quid Pro Quo testimony

[OKTexas]

People with policy disagreements, exaggerating their opinions about a phone call are not evidence.

Of course, thats cultish nonsense, as the testimony of several public servants with infinitely more integrity than the orange turd is strong evidence. The cover up is also evidence.

Yeha, see how it works out in the Senate, IF it gets that far.

.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Yeha, see how it works out in the Senate, IF it gets that far.

Right,that's you neonazis' Alamo: the corrupt senate. Good for you.

 

[Third Party]

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?

Well, it shows that jerk is unreliable-try for a third testimony Sondlander.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Well, it shows that jerk is unreliable-try for a third testimony Sondlander.

No, it shows that even Trump's bootlickers arent going to fall on their swords for the mentally ill criminal.

 

[sealybobo]

They did not, and that is why the Ukraine aid was not released... until the Whistleblower complaint was made, which is highly highly suspicious. Vindman Sondland and Taylor have all verified this.

Except that they haven't.

Except they have, what is the problem here you are now lying because you can't accept stated fact?

These statements were addressed in post # 428.
When you actually read it and can meaningfully respond to it, let us know.

They were not. all 3 witnesses have said there was a Quid Pro Quo, you have offered nothing to discredit that in anyway shape or form.

He won’t answer your questions

 

[sealybobo]

We know Sondland lied under oath. FOR TRUMP. And when he realized he was going to get caught, he retracted and changed his testimony.

You cannot cite sources and provide quotes to this effect.

His own words, he said he suddenly remembered there was a Quid Pro Quo to avoid being charged with perjury...
You try to act like there isn;t rock solid evidence here, you have provided nothing to discredit any of this.

Republicans also want to believe that Trump is going to get re elected despite the facts.

Look at you - unable to support anything you say with quoted text from cited sources, so you try to change the subject.

1) SO how do you explain that Vindman, Sondland, and Taylor have all said that there was a Quid Pro Quo?

2) How do you explain the timeline for the aid not being released, then suddenly being released after the story broke,

3) How do you explain the fact that they put the official transcript on the NICE server, which is unheard of AND Vindman says what Trump released is inaccurate.

Did he answer your questions? Bet not

 

[sealybobo]

In the weeks to come, the House will almost certainly vote to impeach Trump, and among the articles of impeachment it will send to the Senate for trial will be an article explaining that Trump’s king-like refusal to allow any testimony before Congress or release any requested documents amounts to obstruction of justice.

There's no doubt the house will impeach Trump,. for any end every little bit of nonsense it can dream up.

If the Republican-led Senate rejects that particular article, if it decides that this extraordinary refusal to produce legally sought evidence is acceptable, then at that moment the very concept of congressional oversight as a check on the executive will die.

Like in 1998, where it failed to convict Clinton for the federal felonies of perjury and obstruction, because Democrats decided said federal felonies did not rise to the level of impeachable offenses?

You’re comparing lying about sex to what trump did? Clinton was impeached for lying about sex. Trump did that and that’s not even what he’s being impeached for. Much mor3 than that

 

[sealybobo]

In the weeks to come, the House will almost certainly vote to impeach Trump, and among the articles of impeachment it will send to the Senate for trial will be an article explaining that Trump’s king-like refusal to allow any testimony before Congress or release any requested documents amounts to obstruction of justice.

There's no doubt the house will impeach Trump,. for any end every little bit of nonsense it can dream up.

If the Republican-led Senate rejects that particular article, if it decides that this extraordinary refusal to produce legally sought evidence is acceptable, then at that moment the very concept of congressional oversight as a check on the executive will die.

Like in 1998, where it failed to convict Clinton for the federal felonies of perjury and obstruction, because Democrats decided said federal felonies did not rise to the level of impeachable offenses?

Lying about a bj is not as bad as trying to get Ukraine to lie about your political opponent

 

[lennypartiv]

Sondland is a disloyal SOB.

 

[M14 Shooter]

In the weeks to come, the House will almost certainly vote to impeach Trump, and among the articles of impeachment it will send to the Senate for trial will be an article explaining that Trump’s king-like refusal to allow any testimony before Congress or release any requested documents amounts to obstruction of justice.

There's no doubt the house will impeach Trump,. for any end every little bit of nonsense it can dream up.

If the Republican-led Senate rejects that particular article, if it decides that this extraordinary refusal to produce legally sought evidence is acceptable, then at that moment the very concept of congressional oversight as a check on the executive will die.

Like in 1998, where it failed to convict Clinton for the federal felonies of perjury and obstruction, because Democrats decided said federal felonies did not rise to the level of impeachable offenses?

They failed to convict Clinton for....

... the federal felonies of perjury and obstruction. Yes.
Because Democrats decided said these federal felonies did not rise to the level of impeachable offenses.

 

[M14 Shooter]

In the weeks to come, the House will almost certainly vote to impeach Trump, and among the articles of impeachment it will send to the Senate for trial will be an article explaining that Trump’s king-like refusal to allow any testimony before Congress or release any requested documents amounts to obstruction of justice.

There's no doubt the house will impeach Trump,. for any end every little bit of nonsense it can dream up.

If the Republican-led Senate rejects that particular article, if it decides that this extraordinary refusal to produce legally sought evidence is acceptable, then at that moment the very concept of congressional oversight as a check on the executive will die.

Like in 1998, where it failed to convict Clinton for the federal felonies of perjury and obstruction, because Democrats decided said federal felonies did not rise to the level of impeachable offenses?

You’re comparing lying about sex to what trump did?

It does not matter how you try to diminish the fact the senate failed to convict Clinton of the federal felonies of perjury and obstruction -- because Democrats decided said federal felonies did not rise to the level of impeachable offenses

According to YOU, the Democrats killed the very concept of congressional oversight as a check on the executive, back in 1998.

 

[M14 Shooter]

In the weeks to come, the House will almost certainly vote to impeach Trump, and among the articles of impeachment it will send to the Senate for trial will be an article explaining that Trump’s king-like refusal to allow any testimony before Congress or release any requested documents amounts to obstruction of justice.

There's no doubt the house will impeach Trump,. for any end every little bit of nonsense it can dream up.

If the Republican-led Senate rejects that particular article, if it decides that this extraordinary refusal to produce legally sought evidence is acceptable, then at that moment the very concept of congressional oversight as a check on the executive will die.

Like in 1998, where it failed to convict Clinton for the federal felonies of perjury and obstruction, because Democrats decided said federal felonies did not rise to the level of impeachable offenses?

Lying about a bj....

Perjury. A federal felony.
Obstruction. A federal felony.
Democrats: The federal felonies of perjury and obstruction are not impeachable offenses.

 

[OKTexas]

Yeha, see how it works out in the Senate, IF it gets that far.

Right,that's you neonazis' Alamo: the corrupt senate. Good for you.

Right, just like the commies that let wild willie off the hook, AFTER HE PLEAD OUT TO FELONIES.

.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Right, just like the commies that let wild willie off the hook, AFTER HE PLEAD OUT TO FELONIES.

Right, so they are assholes, and so are you. Couldn't have said it better myself. Will you be assisting me all evening?

 

[OKTexas]

Right, just like the commies that let wild willie off the hook, AFTER HE PLEAD OUT TO FELONIES.

Right, so they are assholes, and so are you. Couldn't have said it better myself. Will you be assisting me all evening?

No felonies here commie, just commie fantasies. Carry on.

.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

No felonies here

Oops, wrong. Very cultish of you, my desperate little neonazi friend.

Run away from any brown people today?

 

[OKTexas]

No felonies here

Oops, wrong. Very cultish of you, my desperate little neonazi friend.

Run away from any brown people today?

Are you stalking me? And the next time you edit one of my posts in the quote box you will be reported.

.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

No felonies here

Oops, wrong. Very cultish of you, my desperate little neonazi friend.

Run away from any brown people today?

Are you stalking me? And the next time you edit one of my posts in the quote box you will be reported.

.

Well of course, sissy. Lean on that report button. I expect no less.

 

[OKTexas]

No felonies here

Oops, wrong. Very cultish of you, my desperate little neonazi friend.

Run away from any brown people today?

Are you stalking me? And the next time you edit one of my posts in the quote box you will be reported.

.

Well of course, sissy. Lean on that report button. I expect no less.

Only for assholes that consistently ignore the rules. Move along commie.

.

 

[sealybobo]

In the weeks to come, the House will almost certainly vote to impeach Trump, and among the articles of impeachment it will send to the Senate for trial will be an article explaining that Trump’s king-like refusal to allow any testimony before Congress or release any requested documents amounts to obstruction of justice.

There's no doubt the house will impeach Trump,. for any end every little bit of nonsense it can dream up.

If the Republican-led Senate rejects that particular article, if it decides that this extraordinary refusal to produce legally sought evidence is acceptable, then at that moment the very concept of congressional oversight as a check on the executive will die.

Like in 1998, where it failed to convict Clinton for the federal felonies of perjury and obstruction, because Democrats decided said federal felonies did not rise to the level of impeachable offenses?

You’re comparing lying about sex to what trump did?

It does not matter how you try to diminish the fact the senate failed to convict Clinton of the federal felonies of perjury and obstruction -- because Democrats decided said federal felonies did not rise to the level of impeachable offenses

According to YOU, the Democrats killed the very concept of congressional oversight as a check on the executive, back in 1998.

There was oversight. Clinton even testified under oath dummy