Sondland, help me understand

So, Sondland admits that Trump never personally directed him to hold back military aid.
Then the CNN and other mass media articles claim that Sondland confirmed quid pro quo because he “thought” that everyone operated under the assumption of quid pro quo.

This kind of sh!t wouldn’t fly even in a small claims court in the US under normal circumstances. Are democrats really going with it? I think Trumps personality sucks and his behavior is one of the worst for any president I can think of, but this show that Dems are putting out there is just plain ridiculous! This is starting to look like a coup attempt. Can Schiff and other lawmakers who support this show be tried for high treason?

 

Sondland had no role in holding back military aid, he could not do that. The President could and did.

 

At this point in time, the democrat party are in up to their fetlocks. Everything they have tried has failed. They, by their own actions, are realizing they have no candidate on that stage that can beat Trump. I anxiously await their discovery that Trump is actually increasing in popularity as the democrat shitshow plods forward.

 

Did he? What difference does it make if he did?

 

That was not Sondland's role in this scheme. Mulvaney did that as head of OMB

Sondland was part of the strongarm tactics employed to get Zelensky to "do the right thing"

 

CNN ran with that story after Schiff and the dems were done asking questions, and took a lunch break.

After the break the Republicans got Sondland to admit all the crap he has been saying about Trump ordering the investigations as a quid pro quo, were just Sondland's knee jerk assumptions, and no one on the planet, including Trump, every told him aid was tied to investigations

“After you testified, Chairman Schiff ran out and gave a press conference and said he gets to impeach the president of the United States because of your testimony and if you pull up CNN today, right now their banner says, ‘Sondland ties Trump to withholding aid,'” Ohio Congressman Michael Turner said. “Is that your testimony today, Ambassador Sondland? That you have evidence that Donald Trump tied the investigations to the aid because I don’t think you’re saying that?”

Sondland answered by saying he is “presuming” the aid was connected to the investigations.

“No one on this planet told you that Donald Trump was tying this aid to the investigations?” Turner then asked. “Because if your answer is yes then the chairman is wrong and the headline on CNN is wrong.”

Asking the question again, Sondland was forced to answer “yes,” no one has ever directly told him that Ukraine aid was tied to investigations, a statement that rips apart Dems’ conspiracy theories.

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

“Other than my own presumption,” a defeated Sondland answered.

 

It was not up to Sondland to "hold up aid"...nor was that his roll in this scheme.

He was on the "get them to do the right thing" end of it

Mulvaney was head of OMB and held up the aid

 

...because President Trump would not direct someone who can not hold back aid to hold back aid... the logic to this defense is not logical

 

That is not true
Here is a discussion of proof

Courts over the years have debated the extent to which the government has to prove its case to meet this high standard. But it’s clear that, according to the standard, it’s not enough for the trier of fact to simply believe the defendant is guilty. Rather, the evidence must be so convincing that no reasonable person would ever question the defendant’s guilt. The standard requires that the evidence offer no logical explanation or conclusion other than that the defendant committed the crime. Courts sometimes describe this level of confidence in a verdict as a moral certainty.​

“Beyond a reasonable doubt” doesn’t mean, however, that the prosecution must eliminate all unreasonable doubts a jury could possibly have. Nor must the prosecution prove the case beyond a shadow of a doubt or to an absolute certainty. These would be impossible burdens because only witnesses to an alleged crime can be certain—and even then, not all witnesses can be certain. Rather, this highest of standards requires—after consideration of all facts—only one logical conclusion: that the defendant is indeed guilty.​

After consideration of the facts, there is only one logical conclusion...
trump wanted an investigation into Biden
He did not want this because he was concerned about corruption in Ukraine
He did not want this for us national interests
He wanted the investigation for one reason: self interested political reasons..
. he pressured Zelensky to deliver this investigation by ordering withholding aid and promising a Whitehorse meeting if Zelensky would play ball... .
He while these pressures were being applied, he directly asked Zelensky for a favor after talking about these investigations
In order to do all this, he abruptly fired the well respected sitting ambassador
He directed his personal lawyer (not a government employee) to get this set up

In short, there are multiple lines of evidence showing what happened and why it happened. There are also multiple lines of evidence showing trumps fingerprints all over this at every stage.

finally, there s the fact that no alternative explanation of the facts has been offered. Certainly if there was such an explanation, trump would be well placed to instruct knowledgeable individuals within the administration to come forward and clarify the events. That has not happened

 

Is that what happened?

 

They're desperate and they're committed to this path - so,yes.

 

Show this to be true.
Cite the source and quote the text.

 

So, we've moved from quid-pro-quo to extortion to bribery to "strong-arm tactics".
Where does the goalpost land next time?

 

This, friends, is why the Democrats did not want the Republicans to ask questions.

 

Talks about the standard of evidence.....sums up with a mind-reading assessment of Trump's motivations.

 

None of the testimony, thus far, supports your conclusion.
Disagree?
Cite the source and quote the text.

Burden of proof is on the accuser.

 

Out of all those witnesses, did any one of them say they actually heard Trump saying he is holding military aid for investigation on Biden?

 

Why does he say he held the military aid

 

I don’t know why.
But democrats are claiming they know - and yet failed to produce a single witness who actually heard Trump say that he holds aid to Ukraine hoping to get Biden investigated. Not. A. Single. One.
Would you convict someone with murder with such lousy witnesses who just guessed and assumed? If I were a juror, I wouldn’t vote guilty even on a lollipop theft from a candy store with such lousy evidence and witnesses.

To me this starts to look like a real coup attempt.

 

The Ukrainians finally elect someone who has pledged to try to end corruption in his country and what does the Dirty Donald administration do as their first official interaction with him???Why, they try to corrupt him!!

 

I think Mulveney was among the first. There may have been more earlier.

 

Trump did that in his prone call where he tied his favor to the Javelins.

 

He did not.
I read the transcript, there is no such thing.

 

What favors did he want?

 

Did he say that favor was tied to Javelins?