It seems like the words "dramatic" and "bombshell" are thrown around a lot in reference to the impeachment inquiry hearings, but if there were ever a time to use them, it would be to describe yesterday's testimony from US Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland. Right out of the gate, Sondland confirmed that, yes, a "quid pro quo" scheme existed and President Trump directed it. He also said "everyone was in the loop" about what was going on with Ukraine foreign policy, implicating top officials including Vice President Mike Pence. Sondland's testimony punched several gaping holes in the Trump administration's defense of the Ukraine saga. For one, Sondland said he got the impression Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky didn't actually have to conduct the investigations; he just had to announce them. If he's correct, that lends credence to the theory that the probes were simply a political maneuver. Sondland's testimony was especially important for Democrats because he is one of the main witnesses to have had direct contact with the President during the time of the Ukraine dealings.
Will Republicans in Congress finally decide enough is enough and put country ahead of attempted bribery and extortion? Doesn’t look like it...
No one asked John Dean if he personally heard Nixon order the break-in. No one asked Dean if Nixon ordered him to obstruct justice. No one asked John Dean if Nixon was successful in stopping the Investigation. No one needed the answers to those questions.
Congress, the Senate, the American people, and Nixon himself, knew what he had done—that had had violated his oath of office, attempted to obstruct justice—and Nixon had the decency to resign in disgrace.
Here too the truth is apparent; but the Republicans want either a video tape, a confession, or whatever, before they will consider facing the truth and doing the right thing. Trump himself knows what he and Rudy were up to, he lives with it everyday.
Kraken wrote:
It seems like the words "dramatic" and "bombshell" are thrown around a lot in reference to the impeachment inquiry hearings, but if there were ever a time to use them, it would be to describe yesterday's testimony from US Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland. Right out of the gate, Sondland confirmed that, yes, a "quid pro quo" scheme existed and President Trump directed it. He also said "everyone was in the loop" about what was going on with Ukraine foreign policy, implicating top officials including Vice President Mike Pence. Sondland's testimony punched several gaping holes in the Trump administration's defense of the Ukraine saga. For one, Sondland said he got the impression Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky didn't actually have to conduct the investigations; he just had to announce them. If he's correct, that lends credence to the theory that the probes were simply a political maneuver. Sondland's testimony was especially important for Democrats because he is one of the main witnesses to have had direct contact with the President during the time of the Ukraine dealings.
It seems like the words "dramatic" and &... (
show quote)
And he also said at a different time that there was no quid pro quo. Please tell the whole story.
National Park wrote:
Will Republicans in Congress finally decide enough is enough and put country ahead of attempted bribery and extortion? Doesn’t look like it...
Please explain how the Democrats are putting our country first in any of this nonsense. The country is going to hell, while they sit there with their single minded mission, which started they day after the election.
Kraken wrote:
It seems like the words "dramatic" and "bombshell" are thrown around a lot in reference to the impeachment inquiry hearings, but if there were ever a time to use them, it would be to describe yesterday's testimony from US Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland. Right out of the gate, Sondland confirmed that, yes, a "quid pro quo" scheme existed and President Trump directed it. He also said "everyone was in the loop" about what was going on with Ukraine foreign policy, implicating top officials including Vice President Mike Pence. Sondland's testimony punched several gaping holes in the Trump administration's defense of the Ukraine saga. For one, Sondland said he got the impression Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky didn't actually have to conduct the investigations; he just had to announce them. If he's correct, that lends credence to the theory that the probes were simply a political maneuver. Sondland's testimony was especially important for Democrats because he is one of the main witnesses to id have had direct contact with the President during the time of the Ukraine dealings.
It seems like the words "dramatic" and &... (
show quote)
Sondland said it was an opinion. He later disclosed his short conversation with the President.
“I don’t want anything, no quid pro quo, I want Zelensky to do the right thing” said Trump to Sondland.
Why did this not register with you krack?
Kraken wrote:
Right out of the gate, Sondland confirmed that, yes, a "quid pro quo" scheme existed and President Trump directed it. He also said "everyone was in the loop" about what was going on with Ukraine foreign policy, implicating top officials including Vice President Mike Pence.
So what?
Even if there
was a quid pro quo, it doesn't mean a thing. Nancy Pelosi has already stated that "Bribery" is the new charge because the average American couldn't care less about "quid pro quo." This, despite the fact that only a single witness so far has used the word "bribery" to describe anyone's behavior, and that was in portraying Joe Biden.
All foreign aid is given with the implicit understanding that the recipient will do something for the U.S. or any other country that gives foreign aid.
Some bombshell.
yhtomit wrote:
Sondland said it was an opinion. He later disclosed his short conversation with the President.
“I don’t want anything, no quid pro quo, I want Zelensky to do the right thing” said Trump to Sondland.
Why did this not register with you krack?
If a bank robber tells you that he didn't rob the bank, do you believe him?
National Park wrote:
Will Republicans in Congress finally decide enough is enough and put country ahead of attempted bribery and extortion? Doesn’t look like it...
Calm down Chicken Little.
gorgehiker wrote:
If a bank robber tells you that he didn't rob the bank, do you believe him?
So that's your big evidence? Good luck with the American people on that one.
yhtomit wrote:
Was a bank robbed?
These guys are going through all sorts of contortions to come up with something, anything.
gorgehiker wrote:
If a bank robber tells you that he didn't rob the bank, do you believe him?
You win the prize for dumbest off topic question.
Elaine2025 wrote:
You win the prize for dumbest off topic question.
It's hard to beat that one!
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.