People are allowed to correct testimony. It is routine. Looks like you've come to argue unrelated nonsense to try and distract. A question - Has any witness testified, under oath, that this was not a quid pro quo?
Sondland Updates Impeachment Testimony, Describing Ukraine Quid Pro Quo
- Thread starter moe
- Start date
Apparently so does the UNC fan if he needs to lose 30. Jesus, get it together ya fatty.
He didn't say this - Mr. Sondland had said in a text message exchange in early September with William B. Taylor Jr., the top American diplomat in Ukraine, that the president had been clear there was no quid pro quo between the aid and investigations of former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., his son and other Democrats. So now he's saying there was quid pro quo...or that he believes there was quid pro quo? He just misspoke maybe?
Not to distract us from the fun we are having here, but did you see the Randy Marsh Halloween costume?
His text message was not under oath. His deposition and clarifications were under oath. What other low intelligence evasion can you try?
I'm sure those texts won't be used in any form or fashion by the defense...when one is granted. So now he's saying there was quid pro quo...or that he believes there was quid pro quo?
NBC has driven off the cliff with it's summary of his statement. Sondland didn't know why it was held up, and still doesn't. He was speaking presumptions, and this updated testimony does not materially change his previous statement. Fake news is dying quicker and quicker nowadays.
What evasion? I sure hope #TDS doesn't impact your non-existent sex life. Is that a symptom as well?
L M A O
Mod is super mad. Maybe the next big daddy prez can make things better for you, since you clearly can't do it on your own.
NYT must have got it wrong as wellNBC has driven off the cliff with it's summary of his statement. Sondland didn't know why it was held up, and still doesn't. He was speaking presumptions, and this updated testimony does not materially change his previous statement. Fake news is dying quicker and quicker nowadays.
In his new testimony, Mr. Sondland said he believed that withholding the aid — a package of $391 million in security assistance that had been approved by Congress — was “ill-advised,” although he did not know “when, why or by whom the aid was suspended.” But he said he came to believe that the aid was tied to the investigations.
“I presumed that the aid suspension had become linked to the proposed anticorruption statement,” Mr. Sondland said.
Another change....Ok? What does that have to do with the difference of being under oath or not? Trump and his staff should march down there and get on the record. So far, all under oath witnesses have testified to the quid pro quo.
I see the talking points are out with mod swallower claiming the same thing.
Talking points? You mean paragraph 4 of his updated testimony?
Damn you're dumb too. I thought you were above that.
You think Flynn will walk, you think the House GOP will call Schiff to testify and you can't understand simple testimony under oath saying there was a quid pro quo. You're having a ****** week.
Maybe you can point out the quid pro quo in Sondland's updated (snicker) testimony
Correct
Wrong
I understand it better than you're ignorant existence.
I'm having a great week, thanks for your concern.
OK
Q: There were demands, weren't there, that an investigation take place of 2016 or Burisma? Ultimately those were demands, were they not?
A: Ultimately, yes.
Q: And it's fair to say that you had to navigate those demands, you had to accommodate what the President and his lawyer wanted, if you were going to set up this meeting you thought very important?
A: I think that's fair ...
Q: But I think you said, Ambassador, that over time things got more and more insidious. I think those were your words. It started out with no condition, and then there was a condition for an investigation into the corruption, and then there was a condition of an investigation into 2016 and Burisma, and then on the call itself it became clear the condition was an investigation of 2016 and the Bidens. I think you described that as becoming more and more insidious, correct?
A: That's correct.
Huh? That was a member of the House asking questions and that was Ambassador Sondland answering the questions under oath.
Did Sondland offer this in his testimony?
I do not recall any discussions with the White House on withholding US security assistance from Ukraine in return for assistance with President's 2020 election campaign.
or
I asked the President, what do you want from Ukraine? The President responded, nothing.
Post one small piece of his testimony, taken out of context, to counter where he plainly and clearly stated there was a quid pro quo. Good luck with that. I'm sure he will be Donnie's star defense witness. LMAO! You suck at this.
You're stating that the witness's one direct talk with the president is taking it out of context, and all of his other "presumptions" are in context.
