'The answer is yes': Sondland affirms 'quid pro quo' in Ukraine dealings

[FreeinChrist]

'The answer is yes': Sondland affirms 'quid pro quo' in Ukraine dealings

Sondland framed the matter as widely understood across the Trump administration, indicating that senior officials and even cabinet secretaries were aware of the arrangement — and that it was carried out at the “express direction” of the president .

Story Continued Below



“Everyone was in the loop. It was no secret,” Sondland said, according to his prepared remarks. And he directly communicated the quid pro quo to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, Sondland said. He specifically cited a July 19 email copied to acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, Energy Secretary Rick Perry, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and “a lot of senior officials.” In that email, he reveals that he “just talked to Zelensky” and secured a commitment for a “fully transparent investigation.”

Six days later, Trump spoke directly to Zelensky and referenced his request for a Biden investigation during a phone call on July 25 that has become the central focus of the impeachment inquiry.
​

 

[wing2000]

....when will Pompeo and Mulvaney testify?

 

[evoeth]

....when will Pompeo and Mulvaney testify?

Never.

IMO the impeachment inquiry should stay open until courts rule on forcing Pompeo, Mulvaney, Barr, and Trump testifying.

 

[Albion]

Having said the opposite during previous testimony, Sondland today appears to be trying to insulate himself from a perjury charge by changing his story.

 

[S.ilvio]

The Democrat farce continues...

 

[rjs330]

It's interesting that whatever side we are on, that what we believe. Sondland there wasn't quid pro quo and now he does? Which one is the truth? He's just proven himself completely unreliable.

 

[Albion]

Never.

IMO the impeachment inquiry should stay open until courts rule on forcing Pompeo, Mulvaney, Barr, and Trump testifying.

The problem(s) with that are 1) the Congressional Democrats know that support for impeachment is falling fast among independent voters and 2) the longer the process (including the Senate's actions) drags on, the closer we come to the election of 2020 when the decision is in the American people's own hands.

Everything about this makes the Pelosi people need to get it over with as soon as possible.

 

[JohnAshton]

Reading the entire poll reveals that a small lead for impeachment still exists, but it is narrowing.

Thus Pelosi either needs to end it or find a powerhouse blow to aim at the President.

 

[Kentonio]

The problem(s) with that are 1) the Congressional Democrats know that support for impeachment is falling fast among independent voters and 2) the longer the process (including the Senate's actions) drags on, the closer we come to the election of 2020 when the decision is in the American people's own hands.

Everything about this makes the Pelosi people need to get it over with as soon as possible.

You should turn FOX on, they’re turning on Trump as we speak.

 

[NightHawkeye]

Sondland just testified that when he spoke personally with Trump and asked specifically about a quid pro quo, the president told him specifically he was not asking for a quid pro quo, that he just wanted Ukraine to do the right thing.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Sondland just testified that when he spoke personally with Trump and asked specifically about a quid pro quo, the president told him specifically he was not asking for a quid pro quo, that he just wanted Ukraine to do the right thing.

And, as Mr. Castor so kindly pointed out, this was AFTER people had started asking serious questions about why the aid had been held up. So he had reason to cover his butt.

 

[NightHawkeye]

And, as Mr. Castor so kindly pointed out, this was AFTER people had started asking serious questions about why the aid had been held up. So he had reason to cover his butt.

Perhaps. Doing the right thing is always good though, whether one starts from that point or not.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Perhaps. Doing the right thing is always good though, whether one starts from that point or not.

Yes, doing the right thing is good - but calling for that doesn't erase things said and done before.

 

[JohnAshton]

Gordon Sondland

--is not a deep state bureaucrat, he is a Trump political appointment.
--is not a "Never Trumper"; he was a major donor to Trump's campaign.
--is not a disloyal subordinate; he followed the President's instructions
--is not testifying to hearsay; he had direct knowledge of everything that he testified about
--is not an anonymous whistleblower; he showed up in person
--is not an imaginary Twitter cow; they screen for such things in the Foreign Service.
--is not taking swipes in social media; he is testifying under oath.

There is no way to dismiss this testimony. It can only be rebutted by somebody else testifying under oath, which the White House has refused to allow.

If we were a functioning democracy, it would all be over today.

 

[NightHawkeye]

Sondland also testified that he only just now knows what the quid pro quo was.

??? If he only just now knows ... how was there a quid pro quo?

 

[JohnAshton]

Ask Sondland. He understands now that it was a "this for that" discussion, which in this case was in violation of the Constitution and the law.

 

[SummerMadness]

Today will be another day of Trump supporters falling over themselves to justify the indefensible. But this is the only outcome when one rushes to defend mediocrity.

 

[wing2000]

Having said the opposite during previous testimony, Sondland today appears to be trying to insulate himself from a perjury charge by changing his story.

No longer willing to lie for the POTUS. How many others will flip?

 

[JohnAshton]

I think Sondland was informed that he would be charged and tried for perjury in federal court if he continued with the obvious denial despite the facts and narrative.

 

[wing2000]

Gordon Sondland

--is not a deep state bureaucrat, he is a Trump political appointment.
--is not a "Never Trumper"; he was a major donor to Trump's campaign.
--is not a disloyal subordinate; he followed the President's instructions
--is not testifying to hearsay; he had direct knowledge of everything that he testified about
--is not an anonymous whistleblower; he showed up in person
--is not an imaginary Twitter cow; they screen for such things in the Foreign Service.
--is not taking swipes in social media; he is testifying under oath.

There is no way to dismiss this testimony. It can only be rebutted by somebody else testifying under oath, which the White House has refused to allow.

If we were a functioning democracy, it would all be over today.

...not today. Impeachment wheels turn slowly....a point that many on both sides of the issue seem to struggle with...