Impeachment

[PsyOps]

What specific information that I posted above do you take issue with?

What known "not liar" sources did you use to come up with the conclusion that he was "threatened" into amending his testimony?

Here's where I come from on this. Sondland had an original story. He has done a 180 on that story. He claims new revelations in his memory.

Schiff is on record for lying over and over again.

What more needs to be said?

 

[Chris0nllyn]

Ok, a little late to the discussion - there was a public meeting where the entire testimony was recorded, and in front of God and everyone?
The transcript is everything, from start to finish?

There were testimony's in secure rooms open to those in their respective committees (57 Dems, 47 Republicans). While where the interviews took place was secure, the interviews themselves are unclassified.

A stenographer was in each interview and that was recorded onto a transcript.

The transcript is supposedly everything. I've yet to see anyone challenge the authenticity of the transcripts other than Trump.

Here's where I come from on this. Sondland had an original story. He has done a 180 on that story. He claims new revelations in his memory.

Schiff is on record for lying over and over again.

What more needs to be said?

I don't get where you're coming from. That Sondland "did a 180" only after he knew the transcripts would be released because he lied, or that Schiff manipulated the transcripts available to the public, despite no Republican in those interviews offering any evidence of that?

 

[PsyOps]

I don't get where you're coming from. That Sondland "did a 180" only after he knew the transcripts would be released because he lied, or that Schiff manipulated the transcripts available to the public, despite no Republican in those interviews offering any evidence of that?

Schiff manipulated Sondland. In the same way that Schiff had a whistleblower, and now suddenly that WB is gone. Schif is bent on getting Trump out of the WH. He has lied about everything to make that happen. My conclusion is he now has Sondland in his back pocket. And, it appears Sondland is a flaming democrat, America-bashing, anti-Trumper.

There is not one bit of this impeachment debacle that has had one shred of truth to it.

 

[This_person]

You believe recalling a conversation he himself had is an opinion? I'm not understanding.

I believe this is what I typed above. That "Sondland added in an appendix to his sworn testimony that he recalls speaking with Yermak". What about that is not a matter of fact and an opinion?

He remembers that he offered his opinion. I don’t read anywhere that he is claiming Trump told him that the investigation would have to be announced to get the funds, just that he thought that was true. He had an opinion. That's great for him, but rather meaningless to whether it would be factual.

Did he provide anything that says Trump actually told him that? Did the money get held up? Did they have to announce, on CNN, the investigation to get the funds?

Let's say his opinion was accurate. It's meaningless, but let's say it's spot on. So what? The American president wanted an investigation into what is reported - by Biden - as using the government specifically for personal gain. Whether or not Trump gains from that politically, that's really besides the point, isn't it? The crime that Trump wanted investigated (a) was already being investigated and (b) is reasonable to have investigated. There's nothing to show Biden had ANYTHING but a personal vested interest in his actions, but every bit of documentation shows Trump was withholding funds months before the reported phone call, and the funds were being withheld in what is (consistent with his actions since becoming president) designed to push other nations to pick up the slack in supporting European allies to help themselves.

That's the kind of thing a president is supposed to do. So, I'm looking for the answer....so what?

 

[Midnightrider]

As I said, recollection/correction. Folks change testimony all the time. If it is even that. Sure, according to The Guardian it is, but I tend to view The Guardian with a jaundiced eye. I'm still not yet persuaded to any degree there's smoke, never mind a fire.

--- End of line (MCP)

Right, so nothing nefarious like V is insisting. Which means there was a QPQ of aid for an announcement of an investigation into Biden. That is his amended testimony

 

[Midnightrider]

Schiff manipulated Sondland. In the same way that Schiff had a whistleblower, and now suddenly that WB is gone. Schif is bent on getting Trump out of the WH. He has lied about everything to make that happen. My conclusion is he now has Sondland in his back pocket. And, it appears Sondland is a flaming democrat, America-bashing, anti-Trumper.

There is not one bit of this impeachment debacle that has had one shred of truth to it.

How? What pressure could schiff put on Sondland?

when and how did he become a democrat anti Trumper? The guy was one of trumps biggest donors and a trump loyalist.

 

[vraiblonde]

I've yet to see anyone challenge the authenticity of the transcripts other than Trump.

Really? Because every day I see a Republican House member "correct" the transcripts, either adding to it or putting it in a different context. I also see other players contradicting testimony, like one of the Russian babes did today. Which is why, as I said previously, I'm not really following the story: it changes daily and there's no way of knowing what is actually being said.

But it doesn't surprise me that you wait breathlessly for your handlers to instruct you, and you gobble it up without question and then barf it back out. Especially when a key witness says, "Oh yeah...now I remember! That big thing that I said didn't happen did happen after all!"

You're a true believer. You want to believe.

 

[Yooper]

As I said, recollection/correction. Folks change testimony all the time. If it is even that. Sure, according to The Guardian it is, but I tend to view The Guardian with a jaundiced eye. I'm still not yet persuaded to any degree there's smoke, never mind a fire.

Let's add this. A excellent summation of how Sondland's testimony was manipulated by...The Guardian or WaPo, to name two media outlets:

Home | Sara A. Carter

Taking Back The Story

saraacarter.com

The media is misleading the American people following the public release of the transcript of U.S. ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland on Tuesday. Further, many reporters were quick to report that Amb. Sondland’s testimony confirmed President Donald Trump’s alleged quid-pro-quo deal with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky however, later questioning revealed that Amb. Sondland clarified those earlier statements.

Washington Post reporter Rachel Bade shared on Twitter Tuesday that “Sondland confirmed quid pro quo.” Bade however, failed to include key words in Chairman Schiff’s questioning that appeared to push for a desired partisan outcome. She also failed to share a later part of the testimony, where Amb. Sondland’s clarified his answers to the Chairman.

The rest of the linked article shows more of the context (as well as a link to the entire transcript).

--- End of line (MCP)

 

[Gilligan]

You're a true believer. You want to believe.

Children do that.

 

[Yooper]

Which means there was a QPQ of aid for an announcement of an investigation into Biden. That is his amended testimony

Nope (on both counts). See #68 (above).

--- End of line (MCP)

 

[GURPS]

Do Dems really think an impeachment will be successful? What am I missing? Are the Dems convinced they will take back the Senate in time to proceed?

The Process is about tainting the election for the Moderate / Swing Voters ....... the Leftist ain't voting for Trump, the Right is. and Trump is setting records raising money from this

 

[vraiblonde]

How? What pressure could schiff put on Sondland?

Maybe he saw how Epstein "committed suicide" and had second thoughts?

Maybe they threatened his kids like they did with Gen. Flynn?

You say the dumbest things sometimes. "Erm, what could they do to him? " Are you really this naive?

 

[vraiblonde]

Let's add this. A excellent summation of how Sondland's testimony was manipulated by...The Guardian or WaPo, to name two media outlets:

Remember when the media said the Mueller report confirmed Trump was guilty of being a Russian spy and colluding with them to steal the election? And sent the bots out to parrot that narrative? Even though the report said no such thing and did specifically say that Mueller found no evidence of collusion? And in their hivemind somehow that meant that Trump was guilty?

I can't possibly be the only one who's sick of this garbage. What good could we do with all the money these tards are spending trying to overturn our election?

 

[This_person]

Right, so nothing nefarious like V is insisting. Which means there was a QPQ of aid for an announcement of an investigation into Biden. That is his amended testimony

And, yet, it is not. It's his testimony that he told someone that. There's not even a tiny bit of evidence that it ACTUALLY existed. There's a lot of evidence that the money was due in February, the phone call was in July (showing a lack of link), and that Trump was working to have the EU pay instead of the United States (which is consistent with his previous policy actions.

So, keep trying, but what you're saying just ain't true.

 

[This_person]

 

[Yooper]

Oh, lookee here:

Transcript: Taylor Wasn't On July 25 Phone Call, Never Spoke To Trump

A top anti-Trump witness for House Democrats admitted he wasn't on the July 25 phone call and had never even spoken with Trump about Ukraine military aid.

thefederalist.com

The opening:

A key Democratic witness against Trump admitted in congressional testimony last month that he was not part of the July 25 phone call between the U.S. and Ukrainian presidents, that he didn’t see a transcript or readout of it until late September when it was declassified and released, and that he has never even spoken to President Donald Trump.

William Taylor, the charge d’affairs of the U.S. Embassy in Kyiv, Ukraine, told lawmakers in secret testimony two weeks ago that his opinions about an alleged quid pro quo demanded by Trump were formed largely from conversations with anti-Trump staffers within the diplomatic bureaucracy.

From the middle:

Taylor also testified that his knowledge of the phone call between Trump and Ukrainian president Volodymr Zelensky wasn’t first-hand knowledge.

“And this isn’t firsthand. It’s not secondhand. It’s not thirdhand,” Rep. Lee Zeldin, R-N.Y., said to Taylor. “But if I understand this correctly, you’re telling us that Tim Morrison told you that Ambassador Sondland told him that the president told Ambassador Sondland that Zelensky would have to open an investigation into Biden?”

“That’s correct,” Taylor admitted.

From the closing:

Under questioning from Rep. John Ratcliffe, R-Texas, Taylor also testified that the Ukrainian government wasn’t aware U.S. military funding had been temporarily suspended until late August, and then only after the information was leaked to the news media, meaning an alleged quid pro quo would have been impossible.

“So, if nobody in the Ukrainian government is aware of a military hold at the time of the Trump-Zelensky call, then, as a matter of law and as a matter of fact, there can be no quid pro quo, based on military aid,” Ratcliffe, a former federal prosecutor, said. “I just want to be real clear that, again, as of July 25th, you have no knowledge of a quid pro quo involving military aid.”

“July 25th is a week after the hold was put on the security assistance,” Taylor testified. “And July 25th, they had a conversation between the two presidents, where it was not discussed.”

“And to your knowledge, nobody in the Ukrainian government was aware of the hold?” Ratcliffe asked.

“That is correct,” Taylor responded.

Taylor also testified that he didn’t see any official readout of the July 25 phone call until it was declassified and released by Trump in late September.

“I did not see any official readout of the call until it was publicly released on September 25th,” he said.

--- End of line (MCP)

 

[WingsOfGold]

The link is to the public transcript of the actual testimony. Where it's hosted has absolutely zero bearing on the content. You know that, right?

And we know "some" aren't above misrepresenting what is written in front of them. Just ask shitty schiff,

 

[Yooper]

And so since the testimonies aren't going well, the Dems move the goal posts:


Grasping at (illegal plastic) straws....

EDIT: Just saw this (has same tweet as above):

Desperate Dems Drop 'Quid Pro Quo' Rhetoric, Now It’s 'Extortion' And 'Bribery'

As polling shows the steam running out of the impeachment effort, Democrats turn to spicier language.

thefederalist.com

From the middle:

The real reason that our national lesson in Latin is about to give way is that Democrats hope that “extortion,” and “bribery” sounds worse to Americans.

The effort to use nastier sounding words to describe the alleged high crime or misdemeanor they can’t quite describe is understandable from Democrats who see impeachment losing steam with the public.

--- End of line (MCP)

 

[Midnightrider]

Maybe he saw how Epstein "committed suicide" and had second thoughts?

Maybe they threatened his kids like they did with Gen. Flynn?

You say the dumbest things sometimes. "Erm, what could they do to him? " Are you really this naive?

So now schiff is going to have witnesses murdered if they don’t change their tunes?

it’s sad that you call me dumb in the same thread where you dismissed the existence of congressional transcripts because they were hosted on site you don’t like.

 

[Midnightrider]

Nope (on both counts). See #68 (above).

--- End of line (MCP)

I read the amendment. It’s pretty clear that Sondland has tied the public announcement to the aid. How can you deny that?