bripat9643
Diamond Member
- Apr 1, 2011
- 170,170
- 47,367
- 2,180
Sondland revises Quid Pro Quo testimony
- Thread starter JimH52
- Start date
Paulie
Diamond Member
- May 19, 2007
- 40,769
- 6,387
- 1,830
...for the Clintons and Obama.
- Mar 11, 2015
- 100,994
- 108,849
- 3,645
None are, asshole.[/QUOTE]
Wrong.
B. Kidd
Diamond Member
Due process involves public scrutiny with the subjects attorneys allowed to be present, dribbler.
- Mar 11, 2015
- 100,994
- 108,849
- 3,645
Wrong.
A bit more detail:
5 takeaways from the Gordon Sondland and Kurt Volker testimonies
"Sondland strongly confirms a quid pro quo — but doesn’t connect it to Trump
We knew that Sondland’s lawyer clarified his testimony to the Wall Street Journal, saying Sondland did in fact confirm a quid pro quo.
And now we see that clarification was apparently sent to the impeachment inquiry, too — on Monday. In it, Sondland says there was no other “credible” explanation than a quid pro quo and confirms the testimonies of acting Ukraine ambassador William B. Taylor Jr. and National Security Council aide Tim Morrison and the public comments of Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), all of whom said Sondland had described an explicit quid pro quo.
Sondland said that in “the beginning of September 2019, and in the absence of any credible explanation for the suspension of [hundreds of millions of dollars of military] aid, I presumed that the aid suspension had become linked to the proposed anti-corruption statement” that the Trump team asked Ukraine to make about the investigations. He added that “it would have been natural for me to have voiced what I had presumed to Ambassador Taylor, Senator Johnson, the Ukrainians and Mr. Morrison.”
Subscribe to the Post Most newsletter: Today’s most popular stories on The Washington Post
Sondland also says, as Taylor and Morrison testified, that he told a top Ukrainian official that the “resumption of U.S. aid would likely not occur until Ukraine provided the public anti-corruption statement that we had been discussing for many weeks.”
Importantly, though — and this is key — Sondland doesn’t say this directive came from Trump. He instead says he was acting on his presumption. That could provide Trump a layer of insulation.
At the same time, though, even as Sondland has said Trump insisted to him there was no quid pro quo, everything about the situation he describes indicates there was a quid pro quo in everything but name."
And:
"Sondland, a Trump appointee and Trump donor, too, clearly wasn’t exactly looking to blow the lid off this scandal. But at certain points, he did suggest that the kind of quid pro quos that have been the subject of much debate — and have been confirmed by no fewer than six people, including him now — would indeed be bad and probably illegal.
Sondland’s main defense has been that, while he did push for an investigation into the company that employed Joe Biden’s son Hunter Biden, Burisma Holdings, he didn’t know the situation involved the Bidens.
When he was asked why he was drawing that line, he acknowledged it was because that setup was bad.
“Because I believe I testified that it would be improper to do that,” he said.
A member then asked him, “And illegal, right?”
“I’m not a lawyer, but I assume so,” Sondland said."
5 takeaways from the Gordon Sondland and Kurt Volker testimonies
"Sondland strongly confirms a quid pro quo — but doesn’t connect it to Trump
We knew that Sondland’s lawyer clarified his testimony to the Wall Street Journal, saying Sondland did in fact confirm a quid pro quo.
And now we see that clarification was apparently sent to the impeachment inquiry, too — on Monday. In it, Sondland says there was no other “credible” explanation than a quid pro quo and confirms the testimonies of acting Ukraine ambassador William B. Taylor Jr. and National Security Council aide Tim Morrison and the public comments of Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), all of whom said Sondland had described an explicit quid pro quo.
Sondland said that in “the beginning of September 2019, and in the absence of any credible explanation for the suspension of [hundreds of millions of dollars of military] aid, I presumed that the aid suspension had become linked to the proposed anti-corruption statement” that the Trump team asked Ukraine to make about the investigations. He added that “it would have been natural for me to have voiced what I had presumed to Ambassador Taylor, Senator Johnson, the Ukrainians and Mr. Morrison.”
Subscribe to the Post Most newsletter: Today’s most popular stories on The Washington Post
Sondland also says, as Taylor and Morrison testified, that he told a top Ukrainian official that the “resumption of U.S. aid would likely not occur until Ukraine provided the public anti-corruption statement that we had been discussing for many weeks.”
Importantly, though — and this is key — Sondland doesn’t say this directive came from Trump. He instead says he was acting on his presumption. That could provide Trump a layer of insulation.
At the same time, though, even as Sondland has said Trump insisted to him there was no quid pro quo, everything about the situation he describes indicates there was a quid pro quo in everything but name."
And:
"Sondland, a Trump appointee and Trump donor, too, clearly wasn’t exactly looking to blow the lid off this scandal. But at certain points, he did suggest that the kind of quid pro quos that have been the subject of much debate — and have been confirmed by no fewer than six people, including him now — would indeed be bad and probably illegal.
Sondland’s main defense has been that, while he did push for an investigation into the company that employed Joe Biden’s son Hunter Biden, Burisma Holdings, he didn’t know the situation involved the Bidens.
When he was asked why he was drawing that line, he acknowledged it was because that setup was bad.
“Because I believe I testified that it would be improper to do that,” he said.
A member then asked him, “And illegal, right?”
“I’m not a lawyer, but I assume so,” Sondland said."
L.K.Eder
unbannable non-troll
Those political trump picks sure suck, eh?
EvilCat Breath
Diamond Member
- Sep 23, 2016
- 87,948
- 63,365
- 3,645
Notice how many of Trumps own people are either in prison, headed to prison, or cooperating to stay out of prison?[/QUOTE]
That's what kangaroo courts are like. The witnesses are threatened until they do what they are told.
L.K.Eder
unbannable non-troll
Huh? Are you trying to sound smarter than you're not? Hard pass, moron.
- Mar 11, 2015
- 100,994
- 108,849
- 3,645
I know.Ok
White_MAGA_Man
Platinum Member
- Jan 24, 2019
- 3,238
- 1,380
- 410
bripat9643
Diamond Member
- Apr 1, 2011
- 170,170
- 47,367
- 2,180
For Comey, Brennan, McCabe, Strozk, Page, Yates, Bruce and Nellie Ohr and numerous others.
L.K.Eder
unbannable non-troll
Due process, the trumptards queef, while masturbating to the memories of the lockherup-perfectstorm that got their idol selected.
- Mar 11, 2015
- 100,994
- 108,849
- 3,645
That's what kangaroo courts are like. The witnesses are threatened until they do what they are told.[/QUOTE]
Similar threads
New Topics
-
Frontier agents who mocked passenger were terminated- Started by Quasar44
- Replies: 0
-
FAA announces new air traffic control system in hope of taming busy skies
- Started by Crepitus
- Replies: 2
-
-
-
How did that Van Hollen Guy Get Elected? His Questioning of Kristi Noem Makes him Look Incredibly Weak- Started by Seymour Flops
- Replies: 3
