Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Tuesday, November 05, 2019

US Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland amended his previous closed-door testimony with House impeachment investigators to say that he told a top Ukrainian political aide that the release of US security aid was likely conditioned on Ukraine publicly announcing an investigation that would help the President Trump politically.

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Sondland woke up and heard a voice say 'The ass you save may be your own.'

#1 | Posted by lee_the_agent at 2019-11-05 04:02 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 2

'The ass you save may be your own.'

#1 | Posted by lee_the_agent at 2019-11-05 04

Don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.

#2 | Posted by Zed at 2019-11-05 04:13 PM | Reply

"Gordon Sondland amended his previous closed-door testimony"

Testimony he gave under oath, which, upon further review, was a lie.

Team Trump fails again.

#3 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-05 04:17 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 5

How much longer will Trump suffer the presence of Mr. Sondland?

#4 | Posted by Zed at 2019-11-05 04:18 PM | Reply

Burp. That nothingberder went down great.

#5 | Posted by chuffy at 2019-11-05 04:25 PM | Reply

Evolution of a Republican argument:

It was a perfect call.
There was no quid pro quo (aka "bribe," aka "extortion").
There may have been a quid pro quo, but it wasn't illegal.
There was a quid pro quo, but it isn't impeachable.
The Constitution is illegal.

#6 | Posted by chuffy at 2019-11-05 04:27 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

At this point, the facts are out and they are being formally recorded. Now impeach in the house and acquit in the Senate and then go straight to reelection.

#7 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2019-11-05 04:40 PM | Reply

Poor Mr. Sondland. What did one-million dollars buy him? A place in history as a toad for Donald Trump. His abrupt embrace of the truth? He realized that other people can now hurt him more than Trump, and Donald is a man who now really wants to hurt him very much.

#8 | Posted by Zed at 2019-11-05 04:40 PM | Reply

"Oops haha, i totally forgot about that critical thing that is the entire point of my testimony"

#9 | Posted by JOE at 2019-11-05 04:42 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Link needs to be updated.

#10 | Posted by Angrydad at 2019-11-05 04:46 PM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

"All of this testimony must be made available to the public!"

---Republicans (yesterday)

#11 | Posted by anton at 2019-11-05 04:47 PM | Reply

At this point, the facts are out and they are being formally recorded. Now impeach in the house and acquit in the Senate and then go straight to reelection.

#7 | POSTED BY BRUCEBANNER AT

Probably spot on.

#12 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2019-11-05 04:50 PM | Reply

For sure this overwhelming development will force trump to just resign in disgrace in order to avoid the embarrassment of being impeached.

Said the increasingly nervous socialist justice for some keyboard warrior for the elevteenth time.

#13 | Posted by mutant at 2019-11-05 05:08 PM | Reply

#13 | Posted by mutant

You make too much of it. This is just another story about a rat jumping ship.

#14 | Posted by Zed at 2019-11-05 05:21 PM | Reply

Your momma told you why it is rats jump ships, didn't she?

#15 | Posted by Zed at 2019-11-05 05:22 PM | Reply

For sure this overwhelming development will force trump to just resign in disgrace in order to avoid the embarrassment of being impeached.
Said the increasingly nervous socialist justice for some keyboard warrior for the elevteenth time.
#13 | POSTED BY MUTANT

Naw, we now know that a solid 30% of the country is basically comprised of traitors at this point, we were just surprised at how openly they admitted to it daily. It's not surprising anymore. It was obvious for decades that the rule of law was a joke to Republicans, they just chose this hill to die on for some reason. Stupid people are dangerous, and the Republican Party weaponized it.

#16 | Posted by chuffy at 2019-11-05 05:22 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#13 | POSTED BY MUTANT

You said earlier today in another thread...

"But the released phone transcript proves no quid pro quo."

Do you still stand by that statement? If so, why is Sondland saying there WAS a quid pro quo (that you say was proven not to exist)? Is it all an elaborate conspiracy to get Sondland, a sleeper "deep state" operative, to donate $1 million to Trump's campaign so that Sondland could be in this position to stab Trump in the back? Which pizza parlor basement was this conspiracy run out of? What did Hillary know and when did she know it???

#17 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-11-05 05:23 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

Volker - "I really don't want to say there was a quid pro quo, so, um, I was unaware of it even though it was obvious."
Sondland - "Absolutely no quid pro quo."
Taylor - "ITMFA, here's a detailed accounting of the quid pro quo."
Yovanovich - "They threatened my safety if I didn't commit to the quid pro quo."
McKinley - "WTF? The quid pro quo wasn't worth Marie's livelihood."
Vindman - "I was on the call. Here are some of the missing lines from this phone call summary containing the quid pro quo."
Drumpf - "See! Perfect call. No quid pro quo! SAD!"
Eisenberg - "I will ignore your subpoena until I have to invoke the 5th."
Ellis - "I will ignore your subpoena until I have to invoke the 5th."
Blair - "I will ignore your subpoena until I have to invoke the 5th."
McCormack - "I will ignore your subpoena until I have to invoke the 5th."
Sondland - "I never said, 'Absolutely no quid pro quo,' what I actually meant was there was totally a quid pro quo."

Republicans everywhere - Drumpf said no quid pro quo! Witch hunt!

#18 | Posted by chuffy at 2019-11-05 05:51 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

You talking 'bout my mama boy?

#19 | Posted by mutant at 2019-11-05 06:00 PM | Reply

leaving in disgrace... what a pig.

#20 | Posted by RightisTrite at 2019-11-05 06:23 PM | Reply

as expected a redacted (excerpts) version of the transcript

#21 | Posted by Maverick at 2019-11-05 06:24 PM | Reply

"Sondland - "I never said, 'Absolutely no quid pro quo,' what I actually meant was there was totally a quid pro quo."

Comedy gold, Jerry!

#22 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-05 06:24 PM | Reply

@#13 ... For sure this overwhelming development will force trump to just resign in disgrace ...

I disagree with that.

I doubt if Pres Trump understands the concept of "disgrace."

#23 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-11-05 06:41 PM | Reply

#22

Ukraine, Jerry, Ukraine! You can do whatever you want. No one cares! It's like heaven on Earth!

#24 | Posted by lee_the_agent at 2019-11-05 06:46 PM | Reply

Looks like this past week of Trump and Republican leaders, and not-so-much-leaders, talking about "no quid pro quo!" over and over again is going to come to an abrupt halt!

Again, there is no requirement for the "pro quo" for the crime to be committed.

This is ice cream on top of the imPeachment cobbler.

#25 | Posted by YAV at 2019-11-05 07:01 PM | Reply

Impeachment cobbler? Good one!

#26 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-05 07:04 PM | Reply

For sure this overwhelming development will force trump to just resign in disgrace in order to avoid the embarrassment of being impeached.

Said the increasingly nervous socialist justice for some keyboard warrior for the elevteenth time.

#13 | Posted by mutant

Translation - nothing can be revealled about trump that will shake our cults loyalty to him. We dont care if he abuses power. We're -------- and he's our king.

#27 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-11-05 07:14 PM | Reply

as expected a redacted (excerpts) version of the transcript

#21 | Posted by Maverick

Yeah I'm sure the unredacted portions have some magic words in them that totally negate the rest of the transcript. Keep clinging. We love to watch you dangle.

#28 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-11-05 07:25 PM | Reply

Let me see if I can summarize here...

Pres Putin wants Ukraine back in the Russian orbit, he wants that very strongly. To the extent of continuing a war with Ukraine, even after annexing part of Ukraine.

Ukraine wants Democracy, so Ukraine looks to the United States for help fighting Russia.

Putin wants to assure such overtures from Ukraine to the US are not successful, so he works to assure candidate Trump's installation into the Oval Office.

The tactics used include getting Mr Manafort installed as a campaign manager just before the Republican convention, and having Mr Manafort change the Republican platform regarding Ukraine.

Russia also used Mr Manafort to deflect the blame for the Russian DNC hack by havng him plant the idea that it was Ukraine, not Russia, that hacked the DNC. (Russian Intelligence operative Mr Kilimnik probably thought Mr Manafort would be the useful idiot for this task, and whispered sweet nothings in his ear.)

Once the idea was planted, it grew quickly within the conspiracy-fertilizing alt-right and eventually took root in Pres Trump's consciousness.

Now, Pres Trump is looking to get the server back from Ukraine even though, (1) Ukraine doesn't have it and, (2) the FBI had already imaged the discs of the server so there was really no need to get the actual server.

Because of the above, Pres Trump does not like Ukraine, a sentiment that has been carefully cultivated and nurtured by Mr Giuliani (at this point, I am not sure who is paying him to preform this work).

So, instead of helping Ukraine fight for Democracy, Pres Trump decides to use Ukraine for his political purposes, e.g., getting dirt on a political opponent.

And here we are.

How'd I do?


#29 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-11-05 07:34 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

#28

Speaks,

This is purely whataboutism on my part: Democrats held a contempt vote for Barr over a version of the Mueller report that had less than 1% redacted for the Gang of 8 and that expert testimony claimed Barr would have had to break the law in order to meet their demands.

Other than that, I mostly agree with you on this point. It's just funny to me how redactions matter until they don't matter and vice versa.

#30 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-05 07:38 PM | Reply

A smart person would do his homework before plunking down a million bucks.

Or even a minimum amount of due diligence.

Everything Trump touches dies.

#31 | Posted by Twinpac at 2019-11-05 07:41 PM | Reply

This is purely whataboutism on my part: Democrats held a contempt vote for Barr over a version of the Mueller report that had less than 1% redacted for the Gang of 8 and that expert testimony claimed Barr would have had to break the law in order to meet their demands.

Other than that, I mostly agree with you on this point. It's just funny to me how redactions matter until they don't matter and vice versa.

#30 | Posted by JeffJ

Great whatabout. Now find one that DOESNT involve a proven corrupt partisan puppet of a con man.

#32 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-11-05 08:12 PM | Reply

30 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2019-11-05 07:38 PM | FLAG:

Still doesn't look good for Trump and co.

My prediction is impeachment and catch and release

#33 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2019-11-05 08:19 PM | Reply

How'd I do?
#29 | POSTED BY LAMPLIGHTER

I like it!

#34 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-11-05 08:30 PM | Reply

That was a good run-down, LampLighter!

On this, Mr Giuliani (at this point, I am not sure who is paying him to preform this work). - indulge me. My understanding is Trump's paying Giuliani nothing, Giuliani was paid half a million* by Parnas (Russian under arrest) via Parnas' company Fraud Guarantee. What's not known is where that money came from, though it looks very much like it might be from Firtash+, the Russian oligarch/mob boss.

The only reason I posted all that was because I found it really interesting. Seriously - who engages in corrupt business practices and names their company "Fraud Guarantee"!

* www.reuters.com

+ www.nbcnews.com

#35 | Posted by YAV at 2019-11-05 10:53 PM | Reply

Illegitimate President Bucket of ----- 2020 reelection slogan should be Corruption Guarantee

#36 | Posted by truthhurts at 2019-11-05 11:11 PM | Reply

#13 | Posted by mutant

How big of a turd do you have to be to make light of this?

You probably claim to be a small government "c-c-conservative", but have zero issues with Orange Schitstain grifting his corrupt way through office.

#37 | Posted by jpw at 2019-11-06 12:00 AM | Reply

Can we throw Sondland's lying ass in jail? Or does he get away with "I heard someone else's testimony contradicted mine, so I am going to 'amend' those parts where I was shown to be a liar"?

#38 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-11-06 09:57 AM | Reply

Can we throw Sondland's lying ass in jail?

With Bill Barr as AG that has approximately a 0.00% chance of happening, with a margin of error of 0.00.

Besides, if i recall correctly, he initially claimed not to "recall" the most critical things as opposed to affirmatively stating they did not happen, which is a critical difference in nailing him for lying.

#39 | Posted by JOE at 2019-11-06 10:37 AM | Reply

"he initially claimed not to "recall" the most critical things"

Exactly. The most critical things.

There has to be a set of cuffs and a jail cell that will fit.

#40 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-06 10:43 AM | Reply

#40 The problem with nailing him for that is that it's virtually impossible to prove that he did "remember" something at a particular moment. Yes, we all know he did, but that doesn't mean we can prove it.

It would take an extraordinarily aggressive prosecutor to go after him for that and while Barr is aggressive he certainly isn't going in that direction.

#41 | Posted by JOE at 2019-11-06 10:46 AM | Reply

#40 The problem with nailing him for that is that it's virtually impossible to prove that he did "remember" something at a particular moment. Yes, we all know he did, but that doesn't mean we can prove it.
It would take an extraordinarily aggressive prosecutor to go after him for that and while Barr is aggressive he certainly isn't going in that direction.

#41 | POSTED BY JOE

Yes, there is virtually no chance of getting him on criminal charges or contempt.

Nor should they. It sets a precedent for future witnesses to stick with their lies if they are contradicted and the lie is something they could possibly "not recall".

If they stick with the lies, then they should be prosecuted. Or if it is a completely obvious fabrication, then they should be prosecuted.

I don't like it. But from a practical standpoint, it's necessary.

#42 | Posted by Sycophant at 2019-11-06 12:58 PM | Reply

He thought twice about doing 1-2 years an Danbury.

#43 | Posted by fresno500 at 2019-11-07 11:12 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort