Why all the panic on the Left?

[Nostra]

They are offering their opinions. Thinking people know you don't impeach on the opinions of a few hacks. You need actual evidence, which Dimwingers don't have.

They are also repeating facts of what was said and done
Opinion has very little bearing

Nope. They are offering their opinions, nothing more.

Reporting what occurred is not opinion
Trump is offering lies, nothing more

Sondland's NEW story:

U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland issued a new statement on Nov. 4 to the House Intelligence Committee that he “presumed” military assistance to Ukraine was “likely” being conditioned by the administration when he spoke to a Ukrainian presidential aide on Sept. 1, but that he “did not know… when, why, or by whom the aid was suspended…”

No much evidence.....a whole lotta opinion and guessing.

Oops!

WASHINGTON—A diplomat who is a key witness in the House impeachment probe said he told a Ukrainian official this summer that aid to that country would remain frozen until Kyiv committed to investigations sought by President Trump, reversing earlier testimony that he didn’t know of any such link.

Diplomat Sondland Told Ukrainians Held-Up Aid Was Tied to Investigations

The WSJ doesn't seem to be behind a paywall today. Not on a Foxfire private browser, anyway. Don't read it if you're a Trump supporter.

The same "presumptions" he believes "likely" happened even though "he did not know".

From a guy who lied under oath.......

IMPEACH!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[joaquinmiller]

They are also repeating facts of what was said and done
Opinion has very little bearing

Nope. They are offering their opinions, nothing more.

Reporting what occurred is not opinion
Trump is offering lies, nothing more

Sondland's NEW story:

U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland issued a new statement on Nov. 4 to the House Intelligence Committee that he “presumed” military assistance to Ukraine was “likely” being conditioned by the administration when he spoke to a Ukrainian presidential aide on Sept. 1, but that he “did not know… when, why, or by whom the aid was suspended…”

No much evidence.....a whole lotta opinion and guessing.

Oops!

WASHINGTON—A diplomat who is a key witness in the House impeachment probe said he told a Ukrainian official this summer that aid to that country would remain frozen until Kyiv committed to investigations sought by President Trump, reversing earlier testimony that he didn’t know of any such link.

Diplomat Sondland Told Ukrainians Held-Up Aid Was Tied to Investigations

The WSJ doesn't seem to be behind a paywall today. Not on a Foxfire private browser, anyway. Don't read it if you're a Trump supporter.

The same "presumptions" he believes "likely" happened even though "he did not know".

From a guy who lied under oath.......

IMPEACH!!!!!!!!!!!!!

From a guy who donated $1 million for the honor of being Trump's bagman. He delivered the extortion demand to Andriy Yermak in person. He said so, under oath.

 

[Nostra]

Nope. They are offering their opinions, nothing more.

Reporting what occurred is not opinion
Trump is offering lies, nothing more

Sondland's NEW story:

U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland issued a new statement on Nov. 4 to the House Intelligence Committee that he “presumed” military assistance to Ukraine was “likely” being conditioned by the administration when he spoke to a Ukrainian presidential aide on Sept. 1, but that he “did not know… when, why, or by whom the aid was suspended…”

No much evidence.....a whole lotta opinion and guessing.

Oops!

WASHINGTON—A diplomat who is a key witness in the House impeachment probe said he told a Ukrainian official this summer that aid to that country would remain frozen until Kyiv committed to investigations sought by President Trump, reversing earlier testimony that he didn’t know of any such link.

Diplomat Sondland Told Ukrainians Held-Up Aid Was Tied to Investigations

The WSJ doesn't seem to be behind a paywall today. Not on a Foxfire private browser, anyway. Don't read it if you're a Trump supporter.

The same "presumptions" he believes "likely" happened even though "he did not know".

From a guy who lied under oath.......

IMPEACH!!!!!!!!!!!!!

From a guy who donated $1 million for the honor of being Trump's bagman. He delivered the extortion demand to Andriy Yermak in person. He said so, under oath.

What was the extortion demand? Let's here what was said.

 

[rightwinger]

They can testify as to whether a quid pro quo was in effect

They are offering their opinions. Thinking people know you don't impeach on the opinions of a few hacks. You need actual evidence, which Dimwingers don't have.

They are also repeating facts of what was said and done
Opinion has very little bearing

Nope. They are offering their opinions, nothing more.

Reporting what occurred is not opinion
Trump is offering lies, nothing more

Sondland's NEW story:

U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland issued a new statement on Nov. 4 to the House Intelligence Committee that he “presumed” military assistance to Ukraine was “likely” being conditioned by the administration when he spoke to a Ukrainian presidential aide on Sept. 1, but that he “did not know… when, why, or by whom the aid was suspended…”

No much evidence.....a whole lotta opinion and guessing.

Oops!

Looks like quid pro quo
He is presenting the information as he knows it

 

[Nostra]

They are offering their opinions. Thinking people know you don't impeach on the opinions of a few hacks. You need actual evidence, which Dimwingers don't have.

They are also repeating facts of what was said and done
Opinion has very little bearing

Nope. They are offering their opinions, nothing more.

Reporting what occurred is not opinion
Trump is offering lies, nothing more

Sondland's NEW story:

U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland issued a new statement on Nov. 4 to the House Intelligence Committee that he “presumed” military assistance to Ukraine was “likely” being conditioned by the administration when he spoke to a Ukrainian presidential aide on Sept. 1, but that he “did not know… when, why, or by whom the aid was suspended…”

No much evidence.....a whole lotta opinion and guessing.

Oops!

Looks like quid pro quo
He is presenting the information as he knows it

Yep, like I said....nothing more than his opinion and presumptions.

 

[rightwinger]

It seems like the right is in a panic

They have yet to provide a reasonable explanation for Trumps actions

 

[Nostra]

It seems like the right is in a panic

They have yet to provide a reasonable explanation for Trumps actions

There has been a reasonable explanation put forward, you idiots just refuse to accept it because this is the impeachment straw you have left to grasp at.

 

[joaquinmiller]

Reporting what occurred is not opinion
Trump is offering lies, nothing more

Sondland's NEW story:

U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland issued a new statement on Nov. 4 to the House Intelligence Committee that he “presumed” military assistance to Ukraine was “likely” being conditioned by the administration when he spoke to a Ukrainian presidential aide on Sept. 1, but that he “did not know… when, why, or by whom the aid was suspended…”

No much evidence.....a whole lotta opinion and guessing.

Oops!

WASHINGTON—A diplomat who is a key witness in the House impeachment probe said he told a Ukrainian official this summer that aid to that country would remain frozen until Kyiv committed to investigations sought by President Trump, reversing earlier testimony that he didn’t know of any such link.

Diplomat Sondland Told Ukrainians Held-Up Aid Was Tied to Investigations

The WSJ doesn't seem to be behind a paywall today. Not on a Foxfire private browser, anyway. Don't read it if you're a Trump supporter.

The same "presumptions" he believes "likely" happened even though "he did not know".

From a guy who lied under oath.......

IMPEACH!!!!!!!!!!!!!

From a guy who donated $1 million for the honor of being Trump's bagman. He delivered the extortion demand to Andriy Yermak in person. He said so, under oath.

What was the extortion demand? Let's here what was said.

His testimony:

5. Also, I now do recall a conversation on September 1, 2019, in Warsaw with Mr. Yermak. This brief pull-aside conversation followed the larger meeting involving Vice President Pence and President Zelensky, in which President Zelensky had raised the issue of the suspension of U.S. aid to Ukraine directly with Vice President Pence. After that large meeting, I now recall speaking individually with Mr. Yermak, where I said that 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. I also recall some question as to whether the public statement could come from the newly appointed Ukrainian Prosecutor General, rather than from President Zelensky directly.

6. Soon thereafter, I came to understand that, in fact, the public statement would need to come directly from President Zelensky himself. I do not specifically recall how I learned this, but I believe that the information may have come either from Mr. Giuliani or from Ambassador Volker, who may have discussed this with Mr. Giuliani. In a later conversation with Ambassador Taylor, I told him that I had been mistaken about whether a public statement could come from the Prosecutor General; I had come to understand that the public statement would have to come from President Zelensky himself.

Read Gordon Sondland's revised testimony in the impeachment probe about Trump's pressure on Ukraine

 

[Nostra]

Sondland's NEW story:
No much evidence.....a whole lotta opinion and guessing.

Oops!

WASHINGTON—A diplomat who is a key witness in the House impeachment probe said he told a Ukrainian official this summer that aid to that country would remain frozen until Kyiv committed to investigations sought by President Trump, reversing earlier testimony that he didn’t know of any such link.

Diplomat Sondland Told Ukrainians Held-Up Aid Was Tied to Investigations

The WSJ doesn't seem to be behind a paywall today. Not on a Foxfire private browser, anyway. Don't read it if you're a Trump supporter.

The same "presumptions" he believes "likely" happened even though "he did not know".

From a guy who lied under oath.......

IMPEACH!!!!!!!!!!!!!

From a guy who donated $1 million for the honor of being Trump's bagman. He delivered the extortion demand to Andriy Yermak in person. He said so, under oath.

What was the extortion demand? Let's here what was said.

His testimony:

5. Also, I now do recall a conversation on September 1, 2019, in Warsaw with Mr. Yermak. This brief pull-aside conversation followed the larger meeting involving Vice President Pence and President Zelensky, in which President Zelensky had raised the issue of the suspension of U.S. aid to Ukraine directly with Vice President Pence. After that large meeting, I now recall speaking individually with Mr. Yermak, where I said that 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. I also recall some question as to whether the public statement could come from the newly appointed Ukrainian Prosecutor General, rather than from President Zelensky directly.

6. Soon thereafter, I came to understand that, in fact, the public statement would need to come directly from President Zelensky himself. I do not specifically recall how I learned this, but I believe that the information may have come either from Mr. Giuliani or from Ambassador Volker, who may have discussed this with Mr. Giuliani. In a later conversation with Ambassador Taylor, I told him that I had been mistaken about whether a public statement could come from the Prosecutor General; I had come to understand that the public statement would have to come from President Zelensky himself.

Read Gordon Sondland's revised testimony in the impeachment probe about Trump's pressure on Ukraine

His testimony:

5. Also, I now do recall a conversation on September 1, 2019, in Warsaw with Mr. Yermak. This brief pull-aside conversation followed the larger meeting involving Vice President Pence and President Zelensky, in which President Zelensky had raised the issue of the suspension of U.S. aid to Ukraine directly with Vice President Pence. After that large meeting, I now recall speaking individually with Mr. Yermak, where I said that 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. I also recall some question as to whether the public statement could come from the newly appointed Ukrainian Prosecutor General, rather than from President Zelensky directly.


So, he all the sudden remembered such pertinent facts. And we have a Treaty with Ukraine regarding public corruption, so how do you think this warrants impeachment? I see no mention of Biden.

Oops!


6. Soon thereafter, I came to understand that, in fact, the public statement would need to come directly from President Zelensky himself. I do not specifically recall how I learned this, but I believe that the information may have come either from Mr. Giuliani or from Ambassador Volker, who may have discussed this with Mr. Giuliani. In a later conversation with Ambassador Taylor, I told him that I had been mistaken about whether a public statement could come from the Prosecutor General; I had come to understand that the public statement would have to come from President Zelensky himself.

There are more qualifiers in there then the Summer Olympics. Again, assuming his new recollections are correct, WTF is impeachable in that? Since that post was such a failure I will ask again: Where is the extortion?

 

[rightwinger]

Sondland's NEW story:
No much evidence.....a whole lotta opinion and guessing.

Oops!

WASHINGTON—A diplomat who is a key witness in the House impeachment probe said he told a Ukrainian official this summer that aid to that country would remain frozen until Kyiv committed to investigations sought by President Trump, reversing earlier testimony that he didn’t know of any such link.

Diplomat Sondland Told Ukrainians Held-Up Aid Was Tied to Investigations

The WSJ doesn't seem to be behind a paywall today. Not on a Foxfire private browser, anyway. Don't read it if you're a Trump supporter.

The same "presumptions" he believes "likely" happened even though "he did not know".

From a guy who lied under oath.......

IMPEACH!!!!!!!!!!!!!

From a guy who donated $1 million for the honor of being Trump's bagman. He delivered the extortion demand to Andriy Yermak in person. He said so, under oath.

What was the extortion demand? Let's here what was said.

His testimony:

5. Also, I now do recall a conversation on September 1, 2019, in Warsaw with Mr. Yermak. This brief pull-aside conversation followed the larger meeting involving Vice President Pence and President Zelensky, in which President Zelensky had raised the issue of the suspension of U.S. aid to Ukraine directly with Vice President Pence. After that large meeting, I now recall speaking individually with Mr. Yermak, where I said that 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. I also recall some question as to whether the public statement could come from the newly appointed Ukrainian Prosecutor General, rather than from President Zelensky directly.

6. Soon thereafter, I came to understand that, in fact, the public statement would need to come directly from President Zelensky himself. I do not specifically recall how I learned this, but I believe that the information may have come either from Mr. Giuliani or from Ambassador Volker, who may have discussed this with Mr. Giuliani. In a later conversation with Ambassador Taylor, I told him that I had been mistaken about whether a public statement could come from the Prosecutor General; I had come to understand that the public statement would have to come from President Zelensky himself.

Read Gordon Sondland's revised testimony in the impeachment probe about Trump's pressure on Ukraine

Doesn’t look like opinion to me

 

[RealDave]

These people were involved with the interactions with the Ukraine. Hardly second hand knowledge.

They were not on the call.

They can testify as to whether a quid pro quo was in effect

They are offering their opinions. Thinking people know you don't impeach on the opinions of a few hacks. You need actual evidence, which Dimwingers don't have.

They are also repeating facts of what was said and done
Opinion has very little bearing

Nope. They are offering their opinions, nothing more.

To say they knew Trump withheld aid unless he got dirt is not an opinion.

 

[RealDave]

WASHINGTON—A diplomat who is a key witness in the House impeachment probe said he told a Ukrainian official this summer that aid to that country would remain frozen until Kyiv committed to investigations sought by President Trump, reversing earlier testimony that he didn’t know of any such link.

Diplomat Sondland Told Ukrainians Held-Up Aid Was Tied to Investigations

The WSJ doesn't seem to be behind a paywall today. Not on a Foxfire private browser, anyway. Don't read it if you're a Trump supporter.

The same "presumptions" he believes "likely" happened even though "he did not know".

From a guy who lied under oath.......

IMPEACH!!!!!!!!!!!!!

From a guy who donated $1 million for the honor of being Trump's bagman. He delivered the extortion demand to Andriy Yermak in person. He said so, under oath.

What was the extortion demand? Let's here what was said.

His testimony:

5. Also, I now do recall a conversation on September 1, 2019, in Warsaw with Mr. Yermak. This brief pull-aside conversation followed the larger meeting involving Vice President Pence and President Zelensky, in which President Zelensky had raised the issue of the suspension of U.S. aid to Ukraine directly with Vice President Pence. After that large meeting, I now recall speaking individually with Mr. Yermak, where I said that 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. I also recall some question as to whether the public statement could come from the newly appointed Ukrainian Prosecutor General, rather than from President Zelensky directly.

6. Soon thereafter, I came to understand that, in fact, the public statement would need to come directly from President Zelensky himself. I do not specifically recall how I learned this, but I believe that the information may have come either from Mr. Giuliani or from Ambassador Volker, who may have discussed this with Mr. Giuliani. In a later conversation with Ambassador Taylor, I told him that I had been mistaken about whether a public statement could come from the Prosecutor General; I had come to understand that the public statement would have to come from President Zelensky himself.

Read Gordon Sondland's revised testimony in the impeachment probe about Trump's pressure on Ukraine

His testimony:

5. Also, I now do recall a conversation on September 1, 2019, in Warsaw with Mr. Yermak. This brief pull-aside conversation followed the larger meeting involving Vice President Pence and President Zelensky, in which President Zelensky had raised the issue of the suspension of U.S. aid to Ukraine directly with Vice President Pence. After that large meeting, I now recall speaking individually with Mr. Yermak, where I said that 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. I also recall some question as to whether the public statement could come from the newly appointed Ukrainian Prosecutor General, rather than from President Zelensky directly.


So, he all the sudden remembered such pertinent facts. And we have a Treaty with Ukraine regarding public corruption, so how do you think this warrants impeachment? I see no mention of Biden.

Oops!


6. Soon thereafter, I came to understand that, in fact, the public statement would need to come directly from President Zelensky himself. I do not specifically recall how I learned this, but I believe that the information may have come either from Mr. Giuliani or from Ambassador Volker, who may have discussed this with Mr. Giuliani. In a later conversation with Ambassador Taylor, I told him that I had been mistaken about whether a public statement could come from the Prosecutor General; I had come to understand that the public statement would have to come from President Zelensky himself.

There are more qualifiers in there then the Summer Olympics. Again, assuming his new recollections are correct, WTF is impeachable in that? Since that post was such a failure I will ask again: Where is the extortion?

Sure. A president using federal g=funding to extort information on political rivals is par for the course in Trumpworld.

But not in America.

 

[Nostra]

They were not on the call.

They can testify as to whether a quid pro quo was in effect

They are offering their opinions. Thinking people know you don't impeach on the opinions of a few hacks. You need actual evidence, which Dimwingers don't have.

They are also repeating facts of what was said and done
Opinion has very little bearing

Nope. They are offering their opinions, nothing more.

To say they knew Trump withheld aid unless he got dirt is not an opinion.

You are correct, it is a lie.

Next?

 

[Nostra]

The same "presumptions" he believes "likely" happened even though "he did not know".

From a guy who lied under oath.......

IMPEACH!!!!!!!!!!!!!

From a guy who donated $1 million for the honor of being Trump's bagman. He delivered the extortion demand to Andriy Yermak in person. He said so, under oath.

What was the extortion demand? Let's here what was said.

His testimony:

5. Also, I now do recall a conversation on September 1, 2019, in Warsaw with Mr. Yermak. This brief pull-aside conversation followed the larger meeting involving Vice President Pence and President Zelensky, in which President Zelensky had raised the issue of the suspension of U.S. aid to Ukraine directly with Vice President Pence. After that large meeting, I now recall speaking individually with Mr. Yermak, where I said that 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. I also recall some question as to whether the public statement could come from the newly appointed Ukrainian Prosecutor General, rather than from President Zelensky directly.

6. Soon thereafter, I came to understand that, in fact, the public statement would need to come directly from President Zelensky himself. I do not specifically recall how I learned this, but I believe that the information may have come either from Mr. Giuliani or from Ambassador Volker, who may have discussed this with Mr. Giuliani. In a later conversation with Ambassador Taylor, I told him that I had been mistaken about whether a public statement could come from the Prosecutor General; I had come to understand that the public statement would have to come from President Zelensky himself.

Read Gordon Sondland's revised testimony in the impeachment probe about Trump's pressure on Ukraine

His testimony:

5. Also, I now do recall a conversation on September 1, 2019, in Warsaw with Mr. Yermak. This brief pull-aside conversation followed the larger meeting involving Vice President Pence and President Zelensky, in which President Zelensky had raised the issue of the suspension of U.S. aid to Ukraine directly with Vice President Pence. After that large meeting, I now recall speaking individually with Mr. Yermak, where I said that 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. I also recall some question as to whether the public statement could come from the newly appointed Ukrainian Prosecutor General, rather than from President Zelensky directly.


So, he all the sudden remembered such pertinent facts. And we have a Treaty with Ukraine regarding public corruption, so how do you think this warrants impeachment? I see no mention of Biden.

Oops!


6. Soon thereafter, I came to understand that, in fact, the public statement would need to come directly from President Zelensky himself. I do not specifically recall how I learned this, but I believe that the information may have come either from Mr. Giuliani or from Ambassador Volker, who may have discussed this with Mr. Giuliani. In a later conversation with Ambassador Taylor, I told him that I had been mistaken about whether a public statement could come from the Prosecutor General; I had come to understand that the public statement would have to come from President Zelensky himself.

There are more qualifiers in there then the Summer Olympics. Again, assuming his new recollections are correct, WTF is impeachable in that? Since that post was such a failure I will ask again: Where is the extortion?

Sure. A president using federal g=funding to extort information on political rivals is par for the course in Trumpworld.

But not in America.

Good thing that is just a Dimbulb Party bullshit talking point, huh?

 

[RealDave]

They offer nothing to Americans.

They offer EVERYTHING to Americans!

Just nothing sane people WANT!

• Rampant illegals.
• Higher crime.
• Loss of global standing.
• Massive increase in government yet again.
• Higher taxes.
• Higher unemployment.
• Loss of freedom.
• Freaks and sexos running rampant.

Nice try assfuck but Trump has already lost our global standing.

Freedom to spew hate, racial slurs is important to Trumpettes.

Crime rates have been falling for 25 years.

deportations rose under Obama

Massive increase in government spending? Really? Trump has skyrocketed the deficit & increased spending.

 

[RealDave]

From a guy who donated $1 million for the honor of being Trump's bagman. He delivered the extortion demand to Andriy Yermak in person. He said so, under oath.

What was the extortion demand? Let's here what was said.

His testimony:

5. Also, I now do recall a conversation on September 1, 2019, in Warsaw with Mr. Yermak. This brief pull-aside conversation followed the larger meeting involving Vice President Pence and President Zelensky, in which President Zelensky had raised the issue of the suspension of U.S. aid to Ukraine directly with Vice President Pence. After that large meeting, I now recall speaking individually with Mr. Yermak, where I said that 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. I also recall some question as to whether the public statement could come from the newly appointed Ukrainian Prosecutor General, rather than from President Zelensky directly.

6. Soon thereafter, I came to understand that, in fact, the public statement would need to come directly from President Zelensky himself. I do not specifically recall how I learned this, but I believe that the information may have come either from Mr. Giuliani or from Ambassador Volker, who may have discussed this with Mr. Giuliani. In a later conversation with Ambassador Taylor, I told him that I had been mistaken about whether a public statement could come from the Prosecutor General; I had come to understand that the public statement would have to come from President Zelensky himself.

Read Gordon Sondland's revised testimony in the impeachment probe about Trump's pressure on Ukraine

His testimony:

5. Also, I now do recall a conversation on September 1, 2019, in Warsaw with Mr. Yermak. This brief pull-aside conversation followed the larger meeting involving Vice President Pence and President Zelensky, in which President Zelensky had raised the issue of the suspension of U.S. aid to Ukraine directly with Vice President Pence. After that large meeting, I now recall speaking individually with Mr. Yermak, where I said that 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. I also recall some question as to whether the public statement could come from the newly appointed Ukrainian Prosecutor General, rather than from President Zelensky directly.


So, he all the sudden remembered such pertinent facts. And we have a Treaty with Ukraine regarding public corruption, so how do you think this warrants impeachment? I see no mention of Biden.

Oops!


6. Soon thereafter, I came to understand that, in fact, the public statement would need to come directly from President Zelensky himself. I do not specifically recall how I learned this, but I believe that the information may have come either from Mr. Giuliani or from Ambassador Volker, who may have discussed this with Mr. Giuliani. In a later conversation with Ambassador Taylor, I told him that I had been mistaken about whether a public statement could come from the Prosecutor General; I had come to understand that the public statement would have to come from President Zelensky himself.

There are more qualifiers in there then the Summer Olympics. Again, assuming his new recollections are correct, WTF is impeachable in that? Since that post was such a failure I will ask again: Where is the extortion?

Sure. A president using federal g=funding to extort information on political rivals is par for the course in Trumpworld.

But not in America.

Good thing that is just a Dimbulb Party bullshit talking point, huh?

Sorry, assfuck,. but Trump has been caught.

The only thing that will save him is that Republicans will sacrifice themselves to save him & then pay in November.

 

[RealDave]

They can testify as to whether a quid pro quo was in effect

They are offering their opinions. Thinking people know you don't impeach on the opinions of a few hacks. You need actual evidence, which Dimwingers don't have.

They are also repeating facts of what was said and done
Opinion has very little bearing

Nope. They are offering their opinions, nothing more.

To say they knew Trump withheld aid unless he got dirt is not an opinion.

You are correct, it is a lie.

Next?

My God. It is clear from the summary of the phone call & confirmed by so many others.

 

[Nostra]

What was the extortion demand? Let's here what was said.

His testimony:

5. Also, I now do recall a conversation on September 1, 2019, in Warsaw with Mr. Yermak. This brief pull-aside conversation followed the larger meeting involving Vice President Pence and President Zelensky, in which President Zelensky had raised the issue of the suspension of U.S. aid to Ukraine directly with Vice President Pence. After that large meeting, I now recall speaking individually with Mr. Yermak, where I said that 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. I also recall some question as to whether the public statement could come from the newly appointed Ukrainian Prosecutor General, rather than from President Zelensky directly.

6. Soon thereafter, I came to understand that, in fact, the public statement would need to come directly from President Zelensky himself. I do not specifically recall how I learned this, but I believe that the information may have come either from Mr. Giuliani or from Ambassador Volker, who may have discussed this with Mr. Giuliani. In a later conversation with Ambassador Taylor, I told him that I had been mistaken about whether a public statement could come from the Prosecutor General; I had come to understand that the public statement would have to come from President Zelensky himself.

Read Gordon Sondland's revised testimony in the impeachment probe about Trump's pressure on Ukraine

His testimony:

5. Also, I now do recall a conversation on September 1, 2019, in Warsaw with Mr. Yermak. This brief pull-aside conversation followed the larger meeting involving Vice President Pence and President Zelensky, in which President Zelensky had raised the issue of the suspension of U.S. aid to Ukraine directly with Vice President Pence. After that large meeting, I now recall speaking individually with Mr. Yermak, where I said that 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. I also recall some question as to whether the public statement could come from the newly appointed Ukrainian Prosecutor General, rather than from President Zelensky directly.


So, he all the sudden remembered such pertinent facts. And we have a Treaty with Ukraine regarding public corruption, so how do you think this warrants impeachment? I see no mention of Biden.

Oops!


6. Soon thereafter, I came to understand that, in fact, the public statement would need to come directly from President Zelensky himself. I do not specifically recall how I learned this, but I believe that the information may have come either from Mr. Giuliani or from Ambassador Volker, who may have discussed this with Mr. Giuliani. In a later conversation with Ambassador Taylor, I told him that I had been mistaken about whether a public statement could come from the Prosecutor General; I had come to understand that the public statement would have to come from President Zelensky himself.

There are more qualifiers in there then the Summer Olympics. Again, assuming his new recollections are correct, WTF is impeachable in that? Since that post was such a failure I will ask again: Where is the extortion?

Sure. A president using federal g=funding to extort information on political rivals is par for the course in Trumpworld.

But not in America.

Good thing that is just a Dimbulb Party bullshit talking point, huh?

Sorry, assfuck,. but Trump has been caught.

The only thing that will save him is that Republicans will sacrifice themselves to save him & then pay in November.

Nope. He hasn't been caught at all. You just spew idiotic talking points your handlers feed you.

Grow a brain.

 

[Nostra]

They are offering their opinions. Thinking people know you don't impeach on the opinions of a few hacks. You need actual evidence, which Dimwingers don't have.

They are also repeating facts of what was said and done
Opinion has very little bearing

Nope. They are offering their opinions, nothing more.

To say they knew Trump withheld aid unless he got dirt is not an opinion.

You are correct, it is a lie.

Next?

My God. It is clear from the summary of the phone call & confirmed by so many others.

What is clear?

 

[HenryBHough]

Why would President Trump go in search of dirt on Biden when there is no much obvious without more than a slight glance?