Overheal wrote: » It was a response that took Sondland hours to compose after consulting the President directly.
Spencerfreeman wrote: » Your contention fits the timeline alright. Any proof?
Overheal wrote: » He testified as much to Congress last week.”Sondland now says he only claimed there was no quid pro quo because Trump repeatedly assured him of it in a direct phone call — regardless of whether it was true. “And I recall the president was in a bad mood,” Sondland said in his opening statement.”https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/17/gordon-sondland-to-break-from-trump-in-impeachment-testimony-000288
Spencerfreeman wrote: » Read through that, my question is, was that in the time between the texts? Where is the evidence that it broke as news in between as suggested in this thread?
Overheal wrote: » Yes, Sondland spoke directly with the president before responding to Bill Taylor “ During his closed-door testimony before the House committees probing impeachment on Thursday, Sondland discussed the circumstances surrounding the text. It was already known that Sondland spoke to Trump on the phone just before he sent the text message to another U.S. diplomat who expressed concern about their dealings with Ukraine. But the admission that Trump tacitly pushed him into sending it by repeatedly assuring him there was no quid pro quo is new.”https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/sondland-trump-quid-pro-quo-text
Spencerfreeman wrote: » That confirms that Trump told him their was no QPQ in the time frame discussed but does not confirm it was because the news had revealed it, as contended here.
Overheal wrote: » Revealed what?
duploelabs wrote: » Yeah that was fire control, that text conversant happened after the story broke
Spencerfreeman wrote: » The texts. I was referring to this
osarusan wrote: » He's safe until the GOP decide he's more trouble than he's worth. The GOP will be looking at polls and public opinion and gauging where public sentiment is, and if they conclude that backing him will cost them future votes and future seats, they won't back him. I don't believe the Democrats have any honourable or principled reasons for initiating this impeachment process. They've done so because they think that politically, it's worth it to do so - it will benefit them overall. Similarly, whatever the Republicans do will by motivated by what they believe is best for them politically too, rather than any particular principles. At the moment I think his party are a long way from turning on him though.
Overheal wrote: » Well the texts did happen weeks after the call, weeks after the whistleblower complaint was filed. We will surely get more clarification today.
Spencerfreeman wrote: » I was unaware of the time line. I am still mistrustful of the behind closed doors element of this inquiry. The longer this circus continues the more they hand advantage to Trump.
Overheal wrote: » Closed door elements are part and parcel of Congress. Numerous closed door hearings took place for the Benghazi panel(s), and even more recently suspects and parties of interest in the Mueller investigation, including Robert Mueller himself and James Comey, all gave closed door testimony often in addition to public session testimony.
Spencerfreeman wrote: » Yes I spent good time going over the closed door elements of some of the McCarthy hearings. I believe they are used to keep the public ignorant of facts that directly affect them, in a very negative way.
Overheal wrote: » Well, they aren’t going away any time soon.
Spencerfreeman wrote: » Nor will the full contents of this one be revealed any time soon.
Overheal wrote: » Far far sooner than the practice going away. We do after all already have his opening statement
Spencerfreeman wrote: » Don't kid yourself, it will be partisan and selective, like Pelosi's fact sheet.
Overheal wrote: » Or the Nunes memo. Let’s be clear though, the pelosi sheet excluding the Sondland text was a favor - it does nothing to exculpate the President, it only confirms Trump was engaged in an attempt to coverup quid pro quo that was facilitated by Sondland.
Spencerfreeman wrote: » I think it only proves that Trump gave assurances to Sondland, an amateur Ambassador.
Cody montana wrote: » New: Per source in the room, Bill Taylor’s opening statement was 15 pages long and prompted “a lot of sighs and gasps.”
Overheal wrote: » Rep. Ami Bera (D-Calif.), a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, told CNN that Taylor was being “candid,” but did not provide details about his morning testimony. “He’s filling in some gaps,” Bera said, adding that Taylor’s resume makes it hard for Republicans and the White House to impugn his credibility. “His memory and recollection seems to be a lot better than Ambassador Sondland’s,” Bera said, referring to Trump donor and ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland, who appeared before the committees last week.https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/diplomat-who-raised-alarm-about-withholding-aid-to-ukraine-testifies-in-impeachment-probe/2019/10/22/086fb850-f436-11e9-8cf0-4cc99f74d127_story.html
MadYaker wrote: » So is Sondland just a Trump stooge then who's going to protect the dear leader? You'd wonder how all these rich, accomplished and presumably smart people could think it was wise to get involved with a loose cannon like trump?
Bobtheman wrote: » I wish I had time to rea d all the posts here but we know that unless public opinion swings against Trump this won't pass the Senate where it really happens . So far his base is behind him but depends on what comes out. What's out there at the moment ain't enough
