Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC) tweeted on Tuesday that despite what many media headlines are reporting with regards to Ambassador Gordon Sondland’s testimony, he did not confirm there was a case of quid pro quo between President Trump and Ukraine.
“Seeing many overblown (and outright false) reports about Ambassador Sondland’s testimony. Here’s what he actually said. 1. I did not (and still don’t) know why aid was held up 2. I ‘PRESUMED’ it was because of corruption 3. I told Yermak my assumption,” said Meadows, who sits on the House Oversight and Reform Committee.
Democrats and the media are seizing on paragraph five of Sondland's update, where he tells Mr. Yermak the aid may not be released without an anti-corruption statement.
Even *if* you think this is nefarious… Sondland admits in paragraph FOUR this was based on an assumption! https://t.co/OA7MRn5aGf
— Mark Meadows (@MarkMeadows) November 5, 2019
Sondland also told lawmakers when he talked with Trump about Ukraine, Trump told him, “I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo. I want Zelensky to do the right thing.”
“Both transcripts released today show there is even less evidence for this illegitimate impeachment sham than previously thought,” White House Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham said in a statement. “Ambassador Sondland squarely states that he ‘did not know, (and still does not know) when, why or by whom the aid was suspended.’…By contrast, Volker’s testimony confirms there could not have been a quid pro quo because the Ukrainians did not know about the military aid hold at the time. No amount of salacious media-biased headlines, which are clearly designed to influence the narrative, change the fact that the President has done nothing wrong.”
While it does not look good that Sondland assumed the military aid was tied to a public declaration of an investigation, in his own words, he does not know the exact reason why it was initially withheld. In Kurt Volker’s testimony, he said there was no “linkage” between a White House meeting and Ukrainian investigations.
This is how Democrats and their media partners operate. They told us for years that the Obama economy (1.2% growth) was “booming” and the “new normal”. When they face a situation they have no idea how to address and solve, they simply say it’s not bad… it’s GOOD. The same goes for their impeachment fraud; just because there is NO evidence Trump committed any impeachable offenses, HE DID. He DID because we NEED him to have done it to get rid of him; he did because they WANT that to be so.
Sondland revised his testimony earlier today, with a three-page addition. Apparently he remembered a few things that had somehow slipped his mind. Today:
Bingo. Quid pro quo. Or, if you prefer, attempted extortion.
@Greg:
Uh… NO. First, I refer you to the transcript of the phone call. NO quid pro quo. Then, I refer you to what Zelensky himself said about the call; NO quid pro quo. Then, I refer you to Sonderland’s testimony where he did not know why the funds were held up and Trump told him he wanted no quid pro quo, he just wanted Zelensky to “do the right thing”. NO quid pro quo.
Why would we give $400 million to a corrupt country? Obama, Biden and Kerry committed the quid pro quo, not Trump.
Tonight in Kentucky, Matt Bevin found out what happens when you align with Trump. Defeat. Congressional Republicans should take heed.
@GuyAspromonte: Came damn close for who again ranked least popular governor in the US, guess legalizing dope was pretty popular.
Beshear has a lead over Bevin of 4,658 votes out of more than 1.4 million counted, or a margin of 0.3 percentage points
@Greg:
I prefer attempted extortion, Greg. And it is tremendously heartening to see voters in Kentucky and Virginia tonight reject the criminal currently in the White House.
@GuyAspromonte: I guess they can start impeaching Beshear now. He did it with Russian help.
Roger Stone was just convicted on 7 felony counts that together could carry a maximum sentence of 50 years. He won’t get that, but he’s going to do some time. He wasn’t convicted of trivial crimes.
Given the personal vulnerability that Sondland’s revision to testimony has already created, his attorney is likely now advising him to tell everything he knows or run the risk of prison. I’m betting he won’t take a fall for Trump.
Giuliani could soon find himself in a very difficult position. He might be the first to claim Fifth Amendment protection.
@Greg: You might want to worry about Yovanovitch’s lying to Congress twice and Vindman admitting he was undermining US foreign policy.
Neither Yovanovitch nor Vindman did anything wrong.
Trump’s biggest worry at the moment might be that the Russians have recordings of multiple telephone conversations between himself and Sondland, who didn’t seem to understand that personal cell phone calls aren’t secure. Much of Ukraine’s telecommunication infrastructure is controlled by Russians. Mobile TeleSystems provides cellular service in Russia, Ukraine, Armenia, and Belarus. Vodafone Ukraine, Ukraine’s second largest cellular provider, is part of MTS and fully owned by Russia.
@Greg:
You are totally sick.
Yovanovich meddled in the internal politics of the nation she was an Ambassador of violated the Geneva Convention, grounds for discharge she was cut quite a break getting a teaching position.
Vindman released classified information to unauthorized persons, clear espionage.
Ambassador Sondland should tell the truth he will be under oath, not what he assumed, just the truth.
You have no idea if Sondlands phone was not secure, none at all. After all all he has to do is give it the standard State department treatment, bash it with a hammer.
@kitt, #11:
Influencing policy of the government of the nation one serves as ambassador to is one of the things that ambassadors do.
What classified information did Vindman supposedly release, and to whom? The espionage claim is absurd.
This is just Trump’s routine tactic of attempting to destroy the credibility of his critics and witnesses against him. He uses it about 100 percent of the time, and it’s now worn out from overuse.
@Greg: All communications of the President are classified, the call had to be declassified to release it to congress and the public. It was determined it was Vindman that gave the information about the call to the WB.
Not influencing meddling giving speeches that prosecutors should be fired, suggesting to another prosecutor who shouldnt be investigated. Thats not simply influence its meddling in the internal affairs. She should no longer enjoy a taxpayer funded paycheck, nor be teaching her filthy habits to future State Dept employees.
@kitt, #13:
Says who?
The whistleblower complaint, annotated – A line-by-line analysis of the report that triggered the Ukraine scandal
The letter sent to both the chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence was prefaced as follows:
Needless to say, the heads of the House and Senate intelligence committees have access to classified material.
The letter to them shouldn’t even have been necessary, but the Inspector General’s matter of urgent concern referral was itself being stonewalled, and a legal opinion had been given that the whistle blower would have no whistle blower protections.
If the matter hadn’t been pushed further, the effort to coerce Ukraine into providing Trump with a politically useful weapon against Biden would likely have succeeded, and no one would ever have known a thing about it.
Fortunately a number of patriots decided that couldn’t be allowed to happen. It would have been dereliction of duty not to have reported what was going on.
@Greg: The reaction of Schiff arguing with a GOP member that the WB identity would not be revealed only during Vindmans deposition. Silly paranoid Schiff gave it all away. If he called the suspected WB it would be in the NSA database.
They dont get phone calls of the president those go to a secured server.
Inspector General’s matter of urgent concern referral was itself was not being stonewalled, it was hearsay and gossip as the WB had no first hand knowledge, hardly something to forward. They even had to change the rules to set up this clown show.
It isnt going anywhere anyway its all coming apart at the seams like it was sewn with rotted thread.
We aint buying the patriot line either, they tried that crap way too many times these people are willing pawns in a coup and traitors.
Trump’s guy Gordon Sonderland sings like a canary tomorrow—
Should be interesting to see how Trump deals with his testimony
@Greg:
Last I looked, it’s still illegal to lie to Congress under oath. Even if you are attacking Trump.
Ukrainian minister says Yovanovich gave him a “do not prosecute” list
https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/434875-top-ukrainian-justice-official-says-us-ambassador-gave-him-a-do-not-prosecute?amp&__twitter_impression=true&fbclid=IwAR2O49lnGmyYQibQnWkZkYQBt-sGel8tQ9TKfbsFWM-BTbzMWjESXrakgIw
Yovanovitch contradicts her own testimony about Burisma and Biden
https://www.dailywire.com/news/former-ambassador-marie-yovanovitch-appears-to-contradict-herself-during-testimony-on-bidens-burisma?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=dwbrand
Yovanovitch lied under oath about email
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/marie-yovanovitch-ukraine-emails-house-democrat-staffer-delicate-issue
And I think going to a foreign country and making your own foreign policy in direct conflict with the President of the United State’s foreign policy is a violation as well.
Lt. Col. Vindman might have beein involved in espionage against the United States
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/fox-news-guest-claims-white-house-official-testifying-in-impeachment-probe-could-be-involved-with-espionage
Vindman lies about Obama sending Javelins to Ukraine
What you are saying, I believe, is that if someone is serving the Democrat agenda, then lying under oath and undercutting the President’s lawful agenda is OK, but it isn’t.
Vindman, of course, shows up in his uniform again, hoping to use it to deflect harsh questioning and draw sympathy because the players in this coup try to use ALL the gimmicks.
Trump’s biggest worry is the fantasy imagination of butthurt crybabies that can’t let 2016 go.
Only if they try to influence it from their position UP, not from their position DOWN. They don’t have the authority to MAKE and CHANGE foreign policy.
The details of a confidential call between the President of the United States and the President of Ukraine. HE’S the reason they now get put in a secured file; to keep them away from traitors (i.e. those still working for Obama instead of the US government).
It appears Vindman leaked classified information to the “whistle blower”
https://www.redstate.com/bonchie/2019/11/08/alexander-vindmans-testimony-appears-confirm-illegally-leaked-whistle-blower/
If Biden hadn’t extorted Ukraine to kill an investigation that would have exposed his son’s position at Burisma then the issue would never have come up. One wonders why Democrats aren’t worried about a Vice President threatening our support for an ally in order to protect his son’s $80,000 a month gravy train. Or, maybe we don’t; maybe we fully understand why you don’t. Supporting Hillary for President should be clear enough. Democrats don’t care about laws, ethics, the Constitution or this country.
@Deplorable Me: He’s an Army Officer—you want he shows in a Hawaiian shirt and flip flops?
Note This investigation has seriously hurt both Trump and Biden’s quest for 2020 victory
@Richard Wheeler:
His uniform is not appropriate for this venue. He should face court marshal for his lies and treachery.
@Deplorable Me, #19:
Of course it’s appropriate. Vindman is an active duty Lieutenant Colonel, testifying before the Congress of the United States about things that happened in the context of his of his official duties in connection with questions concerning the conduct of the Commander in Chief of the nation’s armed forces. His dress army service uniform is called for on such a formal occasion.
If Trump accepts the House’s open invitation to come tell his side of the story and shows up in his little toy tin soldier uniform, that would be inappropriate. It would also require the services of several highly creative tailors.
@Greg: Well, it’s appropriate for the purpose of trying to use it as a shield against questions about his presumption that he, not the President, makes foreign policy and leaks.