Sondland changes everything

  • Thread starter Thread starter Maximus1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
He should block irrelevant witnesses. I wouldn’t allow the GOP to turn things into a sham. So far the GOP hasn’t offered a single legitimate argument to call additional witnesses.
 
Last edited:
Maximus1 said:
He should block irrelevant witnesses
Click to expand...
Irrelevant? The whistleblower? 🤔.
You mean he should block witnesses that might harm his scheme.
Maximus1 said:
I wouldn’t allow the GOP to turn things into a sham. So far the GOP hasn’t offered a single legitimate argument to call additional witnesses.
Click to expand...
There was no legitimate reason to call Bishop, Kent or Yovanovitch . None of them had first hand knowledge of anything. They are offered two things:1) hearsay and, 2) whining about how they didn’t like the policy if the guy who was elected.
 
Last edited:
We get it the Democrats get to make the rules, to the point where they throw out such fundamental Constitutional protections as due process and the right to confront one’s accuser. In their minds, it’s “my rules for you, no rules for me.”
  • Schiff wrote the rules that instruct witnesses not to answer certain questions during hearings.
  • Schiff controls who testifies.
  • Schiff controls how Republicans use their question time.
  • Schiff controls what gets released from his secret depositions.
  • Schiff shuts out witnesses who would contradict his one-sided narrative.
It was really remarkable that Schiff claims to be unaware of the identity of the “whistleblower,” but knew precisely when to cut off questions about him.
 
Last edited:
Too bad the only way he can stop the grandstanding is to take the hearings private.
 
Hearsay means what to you. Trying cases for 25 years and introduced hearsay at one point in all of them. This hearsay boogyman is a nice scam. I have to admit. Like a fleet of robots saying hearsay
 
I love this sham. I have to admit. They have a whole bunch of people tossing around legal terms who don’t know what they mean. It’s awesome fraud on a massive scale
 
Trump’s policy? The vetting for Curruption was complete statutorily in May. Trump acted illegally we found out tonight. And he offered no reason anyway.
 
Irrelevant yes. All the evidence he can offer has been corroborated by witnesses who testified. He can only offer redundant evidence
 
Exactly like quid pro quo, extortion, witness tampering, blackmail and bribery. It changes daily. The unrelenting groundless accusations, calumnies, and outright lies by Democrats endured by President Trump since well before the first day of his presidency. Through it all, he has repelled the attacks, while he produced concrete results for the American economy and American conservatism unseen since President Reagan!
 
Last edited:
mrad25 said:
Exactly like quid pro quo, extortion, witness tampering, blackmail and bribery.
Click to expand...
Plus fraud, racketeering, and conspiring to pay off porn stars to influence elections before the elections.
 
Oh it’s going to get good! Everything will be relevant in the Senate trial, and everyone, no exceptions, will be subpoenaed and interrogated under oath. That means Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Brennan, James Comey, Peter Strzok, and the entire gang behind the coup. That includes Strzok, his girlfriend Lisa Page, Clapper, Brennan, Comey, and whatever Deep State apparatchiks lied to the FISA judge to enable a spying operation on the Trump campaign and transition team — a crime without precedent. President Trump’s legal team this time will have a critical tool thus far denied them: the power to subpoena any and all persons, including all those who were elbow-deep in the Russia collusion hoax. Every single such person will be sworn and aggressively, publicly interrogated under penalty of perjury, by formidable trial counsel. Oh don’t worry Giuliani and Trump I’m sure are putting the legal team together! In the end, President Trump will be seen for three years to have performed two almost impossible full-time jobs simultaneously and supremely well: President of the United States, and defender of the Constitution’s electoral processes against those bent on destroying them.
 
Right, lol just throw the book at him. Murder too of Hilary Clinton I suspect?
 
Ender quoting proceedings (thanks for posting that Ender) . . .
Rep Mike Turner: “Mr. Sondland, let’s be clear: no one on this planet—not Donald Trump, Rudy Guiliani, Mick Mulvaney, Mike Pompeo—no one told you aid was tied to political investigations, is that correct.”

Gordon Sondland: “ That’s correct. ”
Click to expand...
.

In addition to Ender’s post above, this also is relevant:
GORDON SONDLAND: I believe I just asked him an open-ended question, Mr. Chairman. “What do you want from Ukraine? I keep hearing all these different ideas and theories and this and that. What do you want?” And it was a very short, abrupt conversation. He was not in a good mood. And he just said, “I want nothing. I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo. Tell Zelensky to do the right thing.” Something to that effect.
Click to expand...
Bold mine.


The following fact transcript courtesy of Rush Limbaugh (here).
JORDAN: Why didn’t you put that statement? Your opening statement? I think you couldn’t fit it in. Is that right?

SONDLAND: (scoffs)

JORDAN: We might be here for 46 minutes instead of 45 minutes?

SONDLAND: (snickers) It wasn’t purposeful, trust me.

JORDAN: It wasn’t purposeful?

SONDLAND: No.

JORDAN: You couldn’t put it in a 23-page opener, the most important statement about the subject matter at hand: The president of the United States, in a direct conversation with you about the issue at hand, and the president said — let me read it one more time — “What do you want from Ukraine, Mr. President?” “I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo. I want this new guy, brand-new guy in politics, his party just took over, I want Zelensky to do the right thing. I want him to run on and do what he ran on, which is deal with corruption.” And you can’t find time to fit that in a 23-page opening statement?
Click to expand...
Bold mine.

The thread title “Sondland changes everything”
should be rewritten to say
"Sondland changes nothing".

President Trump is still innocent
and this is still yet another democrat hoax
that people are still eating up
night after night on the
news outfits commentary disguised as “news”
that are still fake news networks.

.

Sondland admits this is all based on HIS “PRESUMPTION”.​

MSM ridiculous superlatives below (autostart 6:50 - 8:20).​


Tucker: Impeachment saga is boring, hard to understand, never ending | On Air Videos | Fox News

They all ignore that this was all predicated upon Sondland’s “presumptions” (President Trump explicitly told him no quid pro quo).
Asked outright, “No one on this planet told you that President Trump was tying aid to investigations. Yes or no?”, he answered, “Yes.”

The followup: “So you really have no testimony today that ties President Trump to a scheme to withhold aid from Ukraine in exchange for these investigations.”

Sondland’s answer: “Other than my own presumption.”
Click to expand...
Bold mine

 
Last edited:
Through it all he arrogantly reengaged a foreign leader for dirt on his opponent putting the nation through this. While his enablers make it virtually certain he will continue to defy the law and his oath. Give yourself a hand
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top