Not a good day for America

Interesting other nations had aid held at the same time and some are still on hold.
Wow

Key take ways for today.

1. Sondland admits he was never told by trump aid was conditioned. In fact he admits Trump said the exact opposite.

2. Sondland admits no human being told him there was a quid pro quo, he just assumed it

The big take away is that the Republican defense has been horrible. The defense shouldnt be there was no quid pro quo, even if thats true.

The defense is Trump had every right and even duty to investigate 2016 Ukrainian election interference, Burisma, and the bidens

Wow
Newspaper articles
Correct
Correct....
Lol
They got nothing

What i heard

originally posted by: toolgal462
btw, not for nothing but the "pussy grabber" comment from years ago doesn't bother me....

But the creepy, handsy, hair sniffer DOES give me the creeps....

As a female who was once a child I have a sort of a aversion to creepy ol' pervs....and I'll just leave it at that.

Wouldn't want my child near him.

Oh for sure, I also get super creepy vibes from him. I can't say Im upset that in all this hes been drug through the mud with it.

Hahaha
Castro wants a distinction

Provide evidence mr castro
As you have none chump

Still no facts
Other than i want nothing, i want no quid pro quo,

Yippie

Everyday this impeachment Fiasco continues is a bad day for America.

originally posted by: Grambler

Key take ways for today.

1. Sondland admits he was never told by trump aid was conditioned. In fact he admits Trump said the exact opposite.

2. Sondland admits no human being told him there was a quid pro quo, he just assumed it

The big take away is that the Republican defense has been horrible. The defense shouldnt be there was no quid pro quo, even if thats true.

The defense is Trump had every right and even duty to investigate 2016 Ukrainian election interference, Burisma, and the bidens

Ultimately, the liberal media got ahead of themselves and rapidly pushed out soundbites from Mr. Sondlands opening statement.

My guess is this is exactly what the Dems had hoped for and those media pundits who are personally connected to some of the Dem leadership in that hearing.

In otherwords, all the bombshell spazz and Dem highlights were all from Mr. Sondlands opener.

Of which, without a doubt, was subsequently dismantled and largely collapse under questioning from the GOP.

The initial blitz early in the day set the MSM by the Dems made a nice PR splash that could be interpreted as a win early on, designed to saturate throughout the day.

Nonetheless, this largely amounted to nothing but speculation on Mr. Sondlands part 😌

At the end of the day, the take home win goes to the GOP, althought their defense can be better.

🤷‍♂️ Still have no proof of quid pro quo, another guy with feelings and an opinion of what he thought was going on.

No public announcement of an investigation occurred, and Ukraine, still got military aid. Maybe the democrats, shoulda waited to blow the whistle, or the infamous, whistle blower should have waited until it happened... 🤷‍♂️ Maybe it wasn’t gonna happen.. why be a whistle blower when you can’t prove it?

originally posted by: TomLawless
a reply to: Plotus

Yuck!

I know huh....!

a reply to: Grambler

If no one “in the loop”, as Ambassador Sondland defines it, ever mentioned the existence of a quid pro quo being attached to Ukrainian assistance, and that “loop” naturally included the President, why/how would Sondland get the idea that such a condition existed?

Remember, Sondland was (is?) a Trump supporter, having contributed $1 million to the President’s inauguration. In return, Trump assigned Sondland to work with cabinet-level officers as an ambassador.

So, there is no reason to believe that Sondland arrived at his conclusions out of any kind of malice against the administration.

What’s more,

If no one “in the loop” ever mentioned the existence of a quid pro quo to Sondland,

Why did Trump bring up the term, unbidden, himself, when Sondland, in that phone call wherein he asked the President wanted from Ukraine?

The GOP narrative is that NOBODY but Sondland ever used the term in conversation or writing.

Except, for the fact that the whistleblower complaint had been filed on the previous day, and the President would have been aware of the issues raised in the complaint.

Trump’s “I want nothing! I want nothing! No quid pro quo!” in response to Sondland’s inquiry the following day sounds suspiciously like a kid’s reflexive “I didn’t do it!” when called by a parent.

Guilty conscience, Donny?

There is no whistleblower.

'He' won't even be testfying.

Which means when it goes to the Senate.

It's DOA.

originally posted by: neo96
There is no whistleblower.

Apparently there is, it's sorta how it all got started.

'He' won't even be testifying.

As is their constitutional right. Perhaps they will tho.

Which means when it goes to the Senate.

It's DOA.

Most likely. I also assume alot of Senators will do some soul searching.

What has and is, about to come out will not help Trumps' re-election bid.

Today, Sondland really laid out the road map.

Instead of sound bites. Listen to Sondland's opening statement.

*Language*

originally posted by: Blarneystoner

originally posted by: F2d5thCavv2
a reply to: Blarneystoner

used informally or lightheartedly to refer to a man.

Except the meaning in the southern tier of states in the USA is demeaning and implies the target of such a term is an inferior.

And if you REALLY live in Texas, you damn well know that.

Cheers

Nobody says "cheers" in Texas. I assume he must be a boy... I'm guessing all of the full-time posters here are boys because they couldn't possibly work at full-time jobs...

Ironic how the emptiness of your response speaks volumes.

Your pretending to be in Texas is unconvincing.

Cheers

originally posted by: Grambler

Key take ways for today.

1. Sondland admits he was never told by trump aid was conditioned. In fact he admits Trump said the exact opposite.

2. Sondland admits no human being told him there was a quid pro quo, he just assumed it

The big take away is that the Republican defense has been horrible. The defense shouldnt be there was no quid pro quo, even if thats true.

The defense is Trump had every right and even duty to investigate 2016 Ukrainian election interference, Burisma, and the bidens

Here is an interesting part that I think no one ever followed up on. Sondland said that Ukraine consistently would make promises in the past and not follow through, they were known for this by all. Trump wanted security they would follow through and gave two corruptions he was aware of that he wanted them to publicly say they would work on. Those two things are kind of important to him since he lived them for three years. It's not like Biden gets a free ride from corruption just because he is running for office, and if Biden wasn't running I don't think the President choices would be different.

Trump has made it his mission to not pay out money to anyone just because we are America. A big deal to him these last three years is fixing all the times we had been used for money with zero gains for the US and this falls right inline with what he has been doing with the whole world.

a reply to: Connector

Apparently there is, it's sorta how it all got started.

When Schiff started with his logical fallacy about intent,what's in Trumps head, and his feelings were neither here nor there.

I'm pretty effing sure Schiff made him up.

Schiff closing 'argument' was one of these puppies.

www.logicallyfallacious.com...

Intellectually HONEST people.

Know it.

a reply to: neo96
It was more of his "parody".

Nothing there.
No crimes.