Anonymous wrote:So if there was no quid pro quo, why was the money withheld? Why did the Ukranians think there was a quid pro quo?
If agreement wasn’t a prerequisite for aid, that means aid would have been delivered even if they didn’t agree. So why hold up aid to begin with? That doesn’t add up. Trump’s own defense doesn’t make sense without a quid quo pro.
Anonymous wrote:Mental gymnastics.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:So Senator Johnson confirms Sonderland told the quid pro quo and people are STILL denying it, as if it detracts at all from the impeachable action, which Trump has not only admitted, but is basically defying any punishment for.
He is assuming the GOP won't remove him from office.
Burr, Sasse, Romney and now Johnson. That is four on the road to 30.
Johnson has confirmed that Sondland told him (Johnson) that the military aid was contingent on Zelensky investigating Biden. But he didn't say that he (Johnson) thinks that Trump should not do that or that he thinks it's a serious violation of his oath of office. Johnson also said he thinks it's fine for Trump to ask China to investigate Biden.
Anonymous wrote:AP reporting that House Democrats have requested Ukraine documents from Vice President Pence for impeachment inquiry.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:So Senator Johnson confirms Sonderland told the quid pro quo and people are STILL denying it, as if it detracts at all from the impeachable action, which Trump has not only admitted, but is basically defying any punishment for.
He is assuming the GOP won't remove him from office.
Burr, Sasse, Romney and now Johnson. That is four on the road to 30.
Johnson has confirmed that Sondland told him (Johnson) that the military aid was contingent on Zelensky investigating Biden. But he didn't say that he (Johnson) thinks that Trump should not do that or that he thinks it's a serious violation of his oath of office. Johnson also said he thinks it's fine for Trump to ask China to investigate Biden.
Yeah, no way Johnson votes to convict Trump. He’s one of the biggest bootlickers out there. I’m more hopeful that he gets taken out by this than he votes to convict.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Actually, no. Taylor has his own agenda of some sort. Whenever someone says in a text or email "Don't you remember that conversation we had when you said such and such...." is an attempt by Taylor to create a phoney paper trail of a conversation that never occurred. Lawyers pull this stuff, or try to, all the time. They'll send correspondence "documenting" a conversation that never occurred. Then, if the correspondence is overlooked, or the recipient doesn't respond to set the record straight, the false documentation of a conversation which never occurred becomes the "default record." That's why Sondland jumped all over Taylor, immediately, completely refuting his phoney recollection of a conversation that never occurred.
This is spot on. Looks like a setup.
Exactly. Every single other person is lying except Trump. /s
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Actually, no. Taylor has his own agenda of some sort. Whenever someone says in a text or email "Don't you remember that conversation we had when you said such and such...." is an attempt by Taylor to create a phoney paper trail of a conversation that never occurred. Lawyers pull this stuff, or try to, all the time. They'll send correspondence "documenting" a conversation that never occurred. Then, if the correspondence is overlooked, or the recipient doesn't respond to set the record straight, the false documentation of a conversation which never occurred becomes the "default record." That's why Sondland jumped all over Taylor, immediately, completely refuting his phoney recollection of a conversation that never occurred.
This is spot on. Looks like a setup.
Anonymous wrote:Actually, no. Taylor has his own agenda of some sort. Whenever someone says in a text or email "Don't you remember that conversation we had when you said such and such...." is an attempt by Taylor to create a phoney paper trail of a conversation that never occurred. Lawyers pull this stuff, or try to, all the time. They'll send correspondence "documenting" a conversation that never occurred. Then, if the correspondence is overlooked, or the recipient doesn't respond to set the record straight, the false documentation of a conversation which never occurred becomes the "default record." That's why Sondland jumped all over Taylor, immediately, completely refuting his phoney recollection of a conversation that never occurred.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:So Senator Johnson confirms Sonderland told the quid pro quo and people are STILL denying it, as if it detracts at all from the impeachable action, which Trump has not only admitted, but is basically defying any punishment for.
He is assuming the GOP won't remove him from office.
Burr, Sasse, Romney and now Johnson. That is four on the road to 30.
Johnson has confirmed that Sondland told him (Johnson) that the military aid was contingent on Zelensky investigating Biden. But he didn't say that he (Johnson) thinks that Trump should not do that or that he thinks it's a serious violation of his oath of office. Johnson also said he thinks it's fine for Trump to ask China to investigate Biden.
Anonymous wrote:So Senator Johnson confirms Sonderland told the quid pro quo and people are STILL denying it, as if it detracts at all from the impeachable action, which Trump has not only admitted, but is basically defying any punishment for.
He is assuming the GOP won't remove him from office.
Burr, Sasse, Romney and now Johnson. That is four on the road to 30.