Sondland changes everything

  • Thread starter Thread starter Maximus1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ProVobis said:
Copyrights as I have mentioned. Why isn’t there investigation into that?
Click to expand...
That’s pretty vague. What about the copyrights raises concerns? Is she making a lot of money off them, for example? My understanding is that she had shuttered her brand until after she leaves the White House and that the trademarks are just to protect future interests.
 
Last edited:
Possibly affecting national security and trade wars. Haven’t you been following the financials?
 
Historically, Other Presidents-including big Dem favorites such as FDR, have had non-gov’t associates working at their right hands when it came to foreign policy; look a Mills too. As far as I know, Trump is the only one catching heat for it, as he does for everything.
 
It’s encouraging. Looking at tweets and other social media, America woke up. Trump saying no quid pro quo being represented as " proof" and hearing people repeat it, as if probative of anything, had me wondering if the world went insane yesterday. Imagine? Let’s let everyone go in the prison system that says," I didn’t!"
Believe Michael Corleone when he tells Kay, " NO!"( Would anyone yesterday actually know he was BSing?).
Fortunately the timing coinciding with his knowing he was caught became clear. His non responsive answer to the question, " what do you want," was No quid pro quo. Which of course coincided with the Wistleblowers charge he just heard.
His giant black Crayola talking points was so so so fortuitous. Letting us know his denials are worthless. In days you will abandon this point. They are all part of Trump’s administration and some appointed and the consensus of those who are expert say quid pro quo. Because of knowledge , experience , and common sense.
 
Today it’s obstruction now they want to go after him for. The quid pro quo isn’t working out for them and they know it.
 
Trump used Rudy to get a foreign president to investigate Trump’s political rival.
 
Maximus1 said:
Are you really going to argue Trump was vetting curruption in Ukraine?
Click to expand...
Words that appear in the transcript: Crowdstrike, the DNC server, Burmisa. Yup, exactly what he was doing. May want to catch up on those issues…
 
Last edited:
Why bother with that nonsense. They have paraded one member of Trump’s administration after another. Some appointed, they all testify to facts and common sense. And they are all consistent that there was quid pro quo
 
Last edited:
Trump is Said to be something in theory on the subject, by those proclaiming offer no conduct in this case
 
Last edited:
If they were allowed the call witnesses, I suspect they might be.
 
In days, he will still be the President. Weeks and months too. Have fun with your zero-sum endgame.
 
Last edited:
PaulInVA.
Adam Schiff:

“My colleagues seem to be under the impression that unless the president spoke the words, ‘Ambassador Sondland, I am bribing the Ukrainian president,’ that there is no evidence of bribery. If he didn’t say, ‘Ambassador Sondland, I’m telling you, I’m not going to give the aid unless they do this,’ that there’s no evidence of a quid pro quo on military aid,” Schiff said.

“They also seem to say that, ‘Well, they [Ukraine] got the money. The money may have been conditioned, but they got the money.’ ”

“Yes, they got caught,” Schiff said sharply. “They got caught.”
Click to expand...
Why not just quote Schiff’s parody that he claimed was essentaiily true?

Schiff makes up whatever he wants and your guys treat it like it is Gospel truth.

Not persuasive.
 
De ja vue from the Russian probe.Collusion to obstruction to maybe possibly could have,pathetic🤦🏻‍♀️
 
One day at a time. The prize can be more than a crook like Trump, it could include his accomplices.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top