0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
“After a 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,†Sondland said.
Um.... is this the unedited by Schiff testimony....or the edited by Schiff testimony. Cause it makes a difference, ya know.
Also.... based on this statement... looks like that "public anti-corruption statement" was never made by Ukraine.... was it? And yet ...the aid was released.
Two days after the whistleblower story broke.
*sigh* Read the transcripts, @Once-Ler
The quid pro quo transcripts where the Ukraine President says he wants to "buy more Javelins" and Trump says "I would like you to do us a favor though..."?This one?https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Unclassified09.2019.pdfI have read it @skeeter
And still you assert a quid pro quo. I guess people will see what they want to see, in spite of their lyin' eyes.
A top diplomat appointed by President Trump revised his testimony to lawmakers in the House's impeachment inquiry, saying in the latest version that the president’s dealings with Ukraine amounted to a clear quid pro quo.. . . His testimony and that of former U.S. special envoy to Ukraine Kurt Volker was released Tuesday.
How about also releasing his testimony before it was revised.
True. Old Sam sure could coin a phrase.
READ: Top diplomat revises testimony to indicate quid pro quo with Ukrainehttps://thehill.com/policy/international/469074-read-top-diplomat-revises-testimony-about-quid-pro-quo-with-ukraine
“After a 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,†Sondland said in the written testimony.According to Sondland, who submitted the revised testimony to the House Intelligence Committee through his attorney, other key witnesses' testimony "refreshed" his memory of the events.
There are doubts that Sam actually said that, but it's attributed to him anyway. That said, it's an accurate statement.
And still you assert a quid pro quo.
I guess people will see what they want to see, in spite of their lyin' eyes.
From the article:This reminds me of the Cheech and Chong bit where the lawyer says, "My client merely found these drugs and was on his way to turn them in to the authorities when he was apprehended."
