New Impeachment Scam Thread. Nice People Only.

Sondland testified that Trump wanted “nothing” from Ukraine.

The phone call on September 9th was Trump giving up, the game was over and he had been caught, 2 days later he finally released the aid in hopes that it would all just go away. It didn't.

That's probably the best they're ever going to get, too. I wonder if Pelosi is going to pull a bait and switch at the last minute to prevent this from going into the Senate where Democrats no longer have control of the narrative. Something like, "The American people have heard the facts and we know the Senate will acquit anyway, so we're going to abandon impeachment and let the people decide."

Canadians have low standards for entertainment. Besides building igloos ice hockey and maple syrup.

I guess American politics amuse them because no one gives a ***about Canadian politics.

Impeachment is a charge, the lower house decides if they will charge someone.

Then it moves to the upper house (senate) where the senators are the jury, the SJC presides over the trial.

Impeachment isn't the end, it's just the trigger for a Senate trial. Hence why Bill Clinton was impeached but not removed.

Considering thats yet another false summary of what Sondland has said, no, I would not expect that outcome.

It's a long pointless process so the Democrats can distract us from Joe Biden's teeth falling out...Bernie having a heart attack...and whatever the hell the rest of the losers are doing.

Then on to Iowa to talk to farmers or something. I'm sure every Democrat grew up on a farm or at the very least...knows the lyrics to Old MacDonald !

Oh yeah, they're super authentic people. Let me grab a beer, get some of this hot sauce out of my purse, and eat a hamburger with you to show you just how authentic I can be (when the cameras are rolling).

Politics. I wish there was a better answer, but that's it.

Orange man bad.

“I want nothing, I want nothing, I want no quid pro quo.”

Sondland’s own word in regards to what Trump told him he wanted from Ukraine.

Hard to argue against that.

Pretty easy actually, considering the context. Oh right, nausi never does context!

Expect the Dems to address that remark shortly. Prepare for laughs

Oh hes done now, no president has even written down NOTES before.

So, after all this garbage we still have no crime being alleged.

Time to make one up.

Truly great presidents use teleprompters for everything.

Think he needs bifocals or something? Thats like size 20 font.

Sondland: "Trump never said Ukraine had to investigate Biden to get the aid, I just assumed it."

Assumptions aren’t evidence.

Wasn't expecting Sondland to be the star witness for both sides. Very strange.

What this "bombshell" hearing is amounting to:

- Another witness who never heard anything from the President

- Reached a nefarious conclusion on his own

- Is contradicted by witnesses who actually DID get directives from the President

There is nothing in the article that backs up the claim of:


No mention of being specifically told by Giuliani, no dates, no mention of conversations/meetings where it was explained.
However, if you keep reading when they try to explain it, you get to see:


Possible corruption you say? Didn't trust Ukraine? Sounds like reason enough to want to vet things a bit more before giving up a bunch of money.


So he admits that he wasn't aware of why the aid was held. How can there be an absence of any credible explanation if Giuliani allegedly gave him a quid? HE came to the assumption that if they did something to demonstrate intention to fight corruption, the aid would be lifted. No one told him why the aid was held or what would get it released. He said he believed his reasoning. He wouldn't be believing anything if he was told a quid. He would just make the statement that according to <insert name>, the aid was being held to force Ukraine to <insert action>. If he was instructed by Giuliani as he originally claimed, it would be that simple.


So it sounds like he wanted to do whatever he could to get Ukraine the assistance. HE attempted to get Ukraine to announce an investigation to break the logjam, because he knew Trump wanted an investigation and hoped if he got it, it would be enough to convince Trump to release the aid.


So he believed that was the case, but NEVER gives any specific reasons as to why he believed this was the case. It would be very easy to say that Trump said it, Pence said it, <insert name> said it....but he doesn't...because it was all his doing. He wanted the aid released and hoped he had come up with something that would help it happen. He would have told Zelensky that the aid would be released once he made the public statement if that was the President's stance. Remember how Biden told them they weren't going to get their money unless the prosecutor was fired in the next few hours? He didn't say he believed they wouldn't get their money until he was fired. He had the backing of the POTUS in his statements. Sondland obviously did not.


Again, he just assumed it. He put the Ukrainians in that predicament, but admits he was doing what he could to get them the aid. No one keeps saying they believed anything if they were given direction.

Yep Chanti apparently didnt read her own article.