The fake news media are still trying to pretend Gordon Sondland’s train-wreck impeachment testimony Wednesday spells doom for President Trump.
It doesn’t.
Quite the opposite.
In fact, yesterday was a disaster for the media and Democrats, the worst day so far for an impeachment inquiry that is quickly exhausting the patience of the American people.
All the media got out of our ambassador to the European Union Wednesday was the soundbite they so desperately desired, a soundbite where a witness (who, like all the other impeachment “witnesses,” has witnessed nothing) said, “There was quid pro quo.”
Unfortunately for our media coup plotters, a soundbite is not evidence. But that won’t stop the lying media from playing that soundbite over and over and over again as though it is evidence.
The good news is that the fake media no longer control the flow of information, so here are all the facts the media are desperate to cover up about Sondland’s bizarre testimony, about his inconvenient lies and equally inconvenient truths that handed the Democrats yet another no good, very bad, terrible impeachment day.
- Sondland Has LESS THAN ZERO Evidence of Any Wrongdoing
After using his swaggering opening statement to pretend he had the goods on Trump and the entire administration — which suckered the fake media into slobbering all over themselves with “game over” and “new John Dean” tweets — we learned that he has no evidence whatsoever and that his “bombshell” soundbite is based only on a — get this — “presumption.”
“Nobody else on this planet told you that Donald Trump was tying this aid to the investigation,” asked a Republican questioner. “You really have no evidence.”
“Other than my own presumption,” Sondland admitted, as the air seemed to leak out of him.
And then came this bombshell…
“That was the problem,” Sondland confessed. “No one told me directly that the aid was tied to anything. I was presuming it was.”
Are you kidding me with this garbage?
It gets worse. Because even that was a lie because someone did tell Sondland something, which brings me to the next thing the media do not want you to know…
- Sondland’s Only Actual Evidence Exonerates Trump
“President Trump never told me directly that the aid was conditioned on meetings,” Sondland admitted.
“The aid was my own personal guess,” he added.
“I never heard from President Trump that aid was conditioned on an announcement of investigations,” Sondland admitted later.
However…
Trump did tell Sondland one thing… Trump explicitly told Sondland he wanted “nothing” from Ukraine. “No quid pro quo.”
- Investigating Biden *Is* Investigating Corruption
When he was president, Barack Obama put his vice president, Joe Biden, in charge of diplomatic relations with Ukraine. During this same time, the corrupt oligarch of a corrupt Ukrainian energy company paid Joe Biden’s son, Hunter, $50,000 a month — a month! — to sit on the board of this corrupt energy company, Burisma.
Fifty thousand a month — a month! — even though Hunter knows nothing about energy and doesn’t speak the local language.
Hunter made millions off this sweet deal.
And then, when a Ukrainian prosecutor decided to look into Burisma, Joe threatened to withhold U.S. aid if the prosecutor was not fired.
The prosecutor was fired.
That is a full-blown act of corruption, but still…
Our fake media are hoping to gaslight the American people into believing that Trump asking Ukraine to look into the Bidens’ looting of that country is different from asking Ukraine to look into corruption.
The reasons for the gaslighting campaign are obvious. The media are desperate to cover up the Bidens corruption while, at the same time, pulling off this coup with the false accusation that Trump was “digging up dirt on his opponent.”
No…
The fact is this: Trump asking Ukraine to look into Burisma and the Bidens *is* looking into corruption, which is what we expect our president to do when it comes to foreign aid.
Trump.
Did.
Nothing.
Wrong.
- You Can’t Have a Quid Pro Quo if Ukraine Didn’t Know
Someone should put that on a T-shirt.
How can there be a quid pro quo if Ukraine didn’t know there was a quid to quo?
Over and over and over again, we are being told Ukraine did not feel pressure, never said to anyone that the promise of aid was tied to anything.
Sadly for our coup plotters, this is one of the media’s inconvenient truths Sondland testified to, and what the media don’t want you to know is that this is a massive piece of exculpatory evidence…
“And you understood the Ukrainians received no credible explanation [for the pause in receiving aid], is that right?” the Democrats’ counsel, Daniel Goldman, asked.
“I certainly couldn’t give them one,” Sondland replied.
And there you have it… If Ukraine didn’t know, there can be no quid pro quo.
- The Resistance Tampered with Sondland’s Previous Testimony of No Quid Pro Quo
In October, Sondland testified at Schiff’s secret basement impeachment hearing that there was no quid pro quo. Afterwards, the anti-Trump Resistance bullied and threatened Sondland’s livelihood, his business, even his family.
Gee, you think that might have something to do with his offering up this “quid pro quo” soundbite that fell completely apart as soon as he was asked to back it up with something, anything…?
- Sondland Is the Worst Impeachment Witness in a Long Line of Terrible Witnesses
Get this…
So far, Democrats have not presented even a single witness who witnessed anything.
It is either third- and fourth-hand hearsay coming from these crybaby bureaucrats, or it’s whining about their precious “regular channels,” or it’s some lame attempt to reheat the transcript of the call in question into something it’s not — as though we have not already read the transcript.
Sondland is even worse.
Sondland doesn’t even have third- or fourth-hand testimony; all he has are his stupid presumptions that directly contradict what he was declaratively told by Trump himself.
From the above article:
Joe Biden — now a 2020 presidential candidate — gave just 1.5% of his income to charity along with his wife, Jill Biden.
The small portion the couple gave to charity larger than O’Rourke’s and Sanders’ 2016 donations.
The Bidens donated $3,690 to charity over the course of an entire decade.
This seems dang stingy considering how much largess Joe (thru his son) was skimming off the US taxpayers thru the money laundering of Burisma.
~~~~~~~~~~~
Over & over again Sonland’s testimony was a huge let-down for Dems – compared with the promise it held for Dems.
@Nan G:
that is less than what his son is going to have to pay in monthly child support.
Bingo. If Trump is asking for Ukraine to investigate a US Vice President extorting them to protect his son, then nothing Trump is doing or asking for is wrong. The Democrats can’t tolerate having such corruption exposed so they deny it, bury it, prohibit witnesses associated with it and ban questions getting to the bottom of it. Corruption is the very essence of the Democrats now and they are desperately trying to prevent it from being known. It makes them wealthy.
THIS needs to be investigated.
Trump has the head of DoJ in his pocket; there’s the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977, right? So go ahead and investigate Hunter Biden. Who’s stopping anybody? Of course, you’ll need for some specific crime to have been committed, which might be the reason that a more general investigation by Ukrainian officials seemed like a better option.
Meanwhile, Giuliani actually is under federal investigation, and his activities and possible personal financial involvement in Ukraine are apparently areas of interest.
@Greg:
They don’t need to investigate Hunter… yet. But Daddy needs to be investigated, and not one of those predetermined outcome investigations like Comey and Lynch ran. A REAL one. And I don’t give one goddamn that he’s a candidate; that’s HIS misfortune for choosing to be both a candidate and corrupt.
Of course he is. That’s how the left defends themselves, by creating baseless investigations and creating a gigantic charge over some minor infraction. Keep in mind, you don’t want to FORCE Giuliani to divulge what he has found in Ukraine.