Sondland is changing his testimony and is now saying that everything he did, he did at Trump's request. This is the problem with REAL conspiracies. Sondland has seen that all of Trump's top people are either in jail or awaiting sentencing and he's not going to lay down for Trump.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/immi...ad0e44-f057-11e9-89eb-ec56cd414732_story.html
Yesterday we saw the Republican witnesses saying "Biden would never do anything corrupt for money", and the NSA guy, who saw "nothing wrong" with the July 25th phone call, nevertheless went to the lawyers about the call within an hour of its completion. But only because he feared "leaks".
In fact, although he thought the President did nothing wrong, Morrison went to the lawyers, at Bolton's direction, on three separate occasions.
Sorry, the wrong link was included and its too late to edit it so here's the correct link:
Sondland changes testimony, acknowledges delivering quid pro quo message to Ukraine
Wrong, he was addressing the exchange for a meeting not for funds and info. This is what Mulvaney tried to warn you about that MSM didnct want you to learn or grasp: that there are many types of quid pro quos, typical legal ones and abnormal or problematic ones and even illegal ones.
You've been fooled as seen by not knowing the difference.
I ALREADY POSTED THIS 1-2 PAGES AGO SO YOUR POST IGNORES THESE FACTS:
quid pro quo he spoke of was not the accused one and was a legal unproblematic one for getting a meeting not for aid for info which is never in the phone calls, there's a huge distinction between typical quid pro quo (things you ask of a nation before setting up meetings like we do with North Korea or China meetings).
Furthermore context matters with a release of money quid pro quo, because Bidens quid pro quo release of funds to be done only when you obstruct justice for him is a crime. But if you were to
withold funds from a nation (which never happened)that was interfering with elections and bribing politicians, that quid pro quo is not just legal but it's required if it (the exchange) were to happen, which it didn't. The phrase is being framed for a narrative as problematic and wrong when it describes common practices most times normal procedure in politics.
This is what Mick Mulvaney poorly tried to convey that got him in hot water when the MSM took to their typical word play symantics trying to cloudy up what he was truly saying.
This is where Sondland needed to be careful too, how the word is missused by Schiff to paint a false narrative, however I think it was intended to be deceiving without getting caught in perjury. More proof they think the American people are stupid and will fall for word play games. And we see by the assumed responses from snowflakes, they got a few people confused like they intended to.