In the history of mankind, many republics have risen, have flourished for a less or greater time, and then have fallen because their citizens lost the power of governing themselves and thereby of governing their state. TR


Sondland: Quid Pro Quo, but for a Meeting and Phone Call, Not So Clear on Aid

According to the Washington Examiner:

U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland provided testimony to Congress Wednesday affirming a quid pro quo for Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to secure a meeting and phone call with President Trump.

But Sondland, a pivotal witness in the House impeachment investigation, maintained he did not have direct evidence those conditions were directly tied to critical security aid.

Sondland, in his prepared remarks to the House Intelligence Committee, said that conditions were set for the Ukrainian president to be granted a phone call and meeting with Trump.

Democrats are preparing to draft articles of impeachment that accuse Trump of abusing his office by seeking Ukraine’s help investigating former Vice President Joe Biden, a top political rival. Democrats say Trump held back security aid to force Ukraine to cooperate.

“I know that members of this Committee have frequently framed these complicated issues in the form of a simple question: Was there a ‘quid pro quo?’” Sondland said in his opening remarks. “As I testified previously, with regard to the requested White House call and White House meeting, the answer is yes.”

7 thoughts on “Sondland: Quid Pro Quo, but for a Meeting and Phone Call, Not So Clear on Aid”

      1. Good question: here’s a definition I found that explains it pretty well: “Evidence in the form of testimony from a witness who actually saw, heard, or touched the subject of questioning. Evidence that, if believed, proves existence of the fact in issue without inference or presumption. That means of proof which tends to show the existence of a fact in question, without the intervention of the proof of any other fact, and which is distinguished from Circumstantial Evidence, often called indirect.”

        1. How are we supposed to get direct evidence if the key players from the administration are refusing to testify and haven’t provided any documents?

  1. Wellllllll, maybe not. He did a 180 when he related an actual conversation with MrTrump when he quoted this “I don’t want anything. No quid pro quo. Just have Zelinski do the right thing”.
    Who do we believe, what do we believe when no one other than Sondland is the only one who talked to the POTUS.
    What a mess.

Comments are closed.