It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Democrats getting cold feet on impeachment?

page: 2
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 26 2019 @ 10:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: nataliep
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Here you go

www.youtube.com...

And look it's from fox news, so you know it's legit.


I watched it. Could you point to what time stamp he says that?




posted on Nov, 26 2019 @ 10:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: nataliep
a reply to: PsychoEmperor

Two more fake news sources.....

Damn that far right Yahoo!


Now, however, Lawrence said she sees things differently.

“You can censure, you don’t have to remove the president,” Lawrence said Sunday on No BS News Hour with Charlie LeDuff. “Sitting here, knowing how divided this country is, I don’t see the value of kicking him out of office, but I do see the value of putting down a marker saying his behavior is not acceptable.”

www.yahoo.com...



posted on Nov, 26 2019 @ 10:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: nataliep
a reply to: PsychoEmperor

Two more fake news sources.....


That's hilarious.... "Democratic Congresswoman goes on Radio show and says she against impeachment" Democrats refuse to believe her own words because the radio show she was on they believe is bias... too funny.

Ok sir, my next option? Take the quote:




“You can censure, you don’t have to remove the president. So there’s different levels of activities that you can take under the articles of impeachment,” Lawrence said on the “No BS News Hour” program over the weekend.


and you feel free to contact her office directly to verify it.

Brenda Lawrence Official Website

I would do it myself on your behalf, but I'm sure you'd deem me as "fake news" as well.




posted on Nov, 26 2019 @ 10:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: nataliep
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Here you go

www.youtube.com...

And look it's from fox news, so you know it's legit.


I watched it. Could you point to what time stamp he says that?

It's hilarious, the source they used says there was no quid-pro-quo on the phone call. I wonder how long this account of theirs will last before they come back under a different name.



posted on Nov, 26 2019 @ 10:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: nataliep
Gatewaypundit is a horrible source and fake news.

So, they faked the interview where she said it?


Sondland: Yes, there was a quid pro quo

Sondland: Well, ok, so I presumed there was a quid pro quo... but no, the President never said that, in fact, he said the exact opposite, multiple times.



posted on Nov, 26 2019 @ 10:37 AM
link   
a reply to: PsychoEmperor



That's hilarious.... "Democratic Congresswoman goes on Radio show and says she against impeachment" Democrats refuse to believe her own words because the radio show she was on they believe is bias... too funny.

yes
that just happened



posted on Nov, 26 2019 @ 10:39 AM
link   
a reply to: network dude

00:45
www.youtube.com...

Here's another one for you




posted on Nov, 26 2019 @ 10:39 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I'll back nataliep up on this... yes, Sondland stated that there was a quid pro quo.

Thing is, a quid pro quo isn't illegal or impeachable. I went to town yesterday and executed several quid pro quos. I did a quid pro quo when I paid for my wife's doctor visit... did a quid pro quo when I bought groceries... did a quid pro quo when I got wiper blades for my car. Not doing a quid pro quo would have been illegal as heck, because that would mean I took them without paying.

All a quid pro quo is, is "something for something." An agreement between two parties. It is only a problem if one of the parties forces the other to accept the deal. That didn't happen (or if it did there's no evidence it did and no one directly involved is admitting it).

TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 26 2019 @ 10:40 AM
link   
nataliep is a fake account. Their posting is very familiar to me, I just can't place who they used to be before their last account was banned.



posted on Nov, 26 2019 @ 10:41 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

He said there was quid-pro-quo for a White House meeting, not for military aide. Maybe you can source where he said there was during the phone call.



posted on Nov, 26 2019 @ 10:46 AM
link   
a reply to: nataliep

a reply to: TheRedneck


You are going to have to dig a bit deeper. What was his opening statement based on?

Here is the answer ....

Yet Sondland noted that “we did not think we were engaging in improper behavior” — that no one expressed any concerns. And he admitted that Trump never told him of any “preconditions” for aid or a meeting.

“No one on this planet told you that President Trump was tying aid to investigations. Yes or no?”, he answered, “Yes.”

“So you really have no testimony today that ties President Trump to a scheme to withhold aid from Ukraine in exchange for these investigations.”
Sondland’s answer: “Other than my own presumption.”

Sondland testified, he saw no link between investigations and aid or a Trump-Zelensky meeting. And, he stressed repeatedly, he had no clue at all, ’til “late in the game,” that Joe or Hunter Biden was remotely tied to any of this.
He also admits his current take on it all is shaped by what he’s read about others’ testimony — not his own recollections.

nypost.com...

So that quote where he says there was quid-pro-quo was his presumption, based on the testimony of others, and he was never told anything that ever led him to believe there was any wrongdoing.

Never once did Sondland give any testimony tying anything to military aid.

Now that we have that established, you are right, quid-pro-quo is not even wrong! It could be wrong, but not one person involved ever thought anything wrong occurred including Sondland by his own admission.
edit on 26-11-2019 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 26 2019 @ 10:48 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Yes he did, that's what he was talking about

Sondland: "Yes, there was a quid pro quo"
The truth has been released!



posted on Nov, 26 2019 @ 10:49 AM
link   
Posted earlier here
www.abovetopsecret.com...


Thread closed.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join