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.
Sondland was a huge Trump campaign donor and major fan of Trump's. You think that Schiff got to him and manipulated him into revising 6 portions of his entire testimony (I'd argue that, based on the appendix he provided, he did not do a 180).
It's a shame that you folks are letting common sense go out the window in favor of a conspiracy theory with no basis on reality.
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?
Do you read the quotes and other information provided?
Sure, one portion of the appendix was an opinion, but that was never, ever, the basis for this entire thing being brought up. If you go back, you'll see that the main point was that he "remembered" that:
You believe recalling a conversation he himself had is an opinion? I'm not understanding.
View attachment 142403
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?
This is not an opinion. This is a matter of fact that Sondland himself met with Yermak. Again, in no way shape or form is this an opinion.
The rest of your post assumes it (whatever "it" is) is an opinion. And, no, that's the WHOLE point. That Trump withheld congressionaly-approved military aid to another country in hope that other country would re-open an already-closed investigation not about Hunter Biden to make it about Hunter Biden so he could use that dirt during his upcoming 2020 campaign.
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.
Prove it. Where are the corrected transcripts? Where, specifically, are they incorrect?
And I'm not talking about some Congressman going on Fox News saying "This is a witch hunt! Read the transcript! Duly elected President! Will of the people!"; I'm talking about a formal challenge to the transcript recorded by a nonpartisan stenographer (unless you've got a Breitbart article saying the stenographer is a Democrat donor/Russian spy/work for Cambridge Analytica) and part of public record that was reviewed by both Democrats and Republican members of the Committees.
And we know "some" aren't above misrepresenting what is written in front of them. Just ask shitty schiff,
No doubt that Schiff screwed that up. He should never have "characterized" the transcript in any way. Read it as it is.
But to my knowledge no one in that room when those interviews were happening has said the transcripts released are false or missing information.
Here's how. From Sondland's statement:
You want to say "tied"? Fine. But then don't forget that his tying was a PRESUMPTION. We would all be better off if presumptions (i.e., opinions) weren't presented as facts (i.e., first-hand knowledge).
--- End of line (MCP)
IMO, his opinion should not matter. I agree with that. How he felt something happened is irrelevant. However, we know what he did specifically. And I think that is being overlooked because it's easy to say "see, it's an opinion/presumption
It's my theory. Schiff has been dishonest and shady throughout this entire process.
Chronically lying. I know he made up his own Broadway play about Trump's transcript (not surprisingly, no one here has questioned the authenticity of that transcript), but I'd love to see evidence that he's "chronically" lied. It's not something that I doubt happens as everything is hyper-partisan these days and misrepresenting/lying about something (for example, Schiff's "ample evidence of Russian collusion" claim), but it's a bit strange that after years of being chronically lied to by our President, you folks suddenly care deeply about honesty.
Holding his depositions in the dark. Patently false. They were held according to House rules in Committees responsible for conducting the interviews. Almost equal Democrats and Republicans sat in those interviews and got equal time to ask questions. If they were in the dark, it's because Republicans didn't show up.
Refusing to allow republicans to cross examine. False. Again. The questions are right there in the transcripts.
When they can cross examine, Schiff shuts them down stating they can't ask certain questions. Where did this happen? I admit that I haven't read through the entirety of all the transcripts, but I'm curious where this happened specifically because context may be important.
Only allowing republicans to view documents when a democrat is present. Same as above. I hadn't heard about this. Was it a procedural thing? Got a link?
I'm fail to see what part of this process you see as legitimate, and that would lead you to believe Sondland - after flipping on his original testimony - is legitimate, given all of the other shenanigans from Schiff and his ilk. Every bit of this leads me to believe Sondland is being pressured or influenced by someone; why not Schiff; since he's been the most dishonest of all? I see no evidence that he "flipped" his testimony. He testified for hours and only changed 6 things in his Appendix. Do you believe all the other witnesses are being pressured also?
The fact that you see one bit of this so-called "inquiry" as legitimate shows you're just another never-Trumper wishing for his removal from office. This sort of thing - holding illegitimate hearings to remove a duly elected president - really makes me sick. It's a cancer in this country that aims to undermine our constitution. The House has every right to impeach a President. It's in the Constitution. The hearings are following House rules set by Republicans. You are parroting talking points.
It's pretty disturbing that I'm even engaging in a debate with someone that holds these sentiments.
Can we not make up things? You're are spreading false information.
I get that this political process is too political, but let's at least be honest about the things we say.
