republicans and true facts are not out for the public to see. sondland s few reports stated quote i believe ruin correct about president trump s intentions, the president has been crystal clear no quid pro quos of any kind, closed quote. that says it all. that was the president on october 8th. it s almost like president trump will have to change his position, you think that s ever happened before in do you think it s like without precedent? he s just going to say, i mean, the one thing he will say is that the text he sent of no quid pro quo was true then and is true now. i mean, he will cherry pick the parts of sondland s testimony that he agrees with, like that text message he sent to ambassador taylor. but you know anyone who followed sondland s testimony, we don t know, knows that there is no possible explanation for this
well one conversation. the september 9th conversation. right. specifically where sondland said what do you want me to do. and president trump wrote down what he said if we want to show the photograph, president trump, i want nothing, i want nothing. i want no quid pro quo. tell zelensky to do the right thing. that is the final word from president trump on the matter. now we should point out that that was september 9th, supposedly, that he said that. at least according to sondland and what do we know about what was going on on september 9th? that the whistle-blower s complaint had reached the white house. it had reached congress. not only did the president discover that quid pro quos were inappropriate, he also released the money. again a republican talking point. september 11th, two days later. that period. but this idea that there is no harm to ukrainians and this is no big deal because they released the money any way and
sondland going to say was the reason or reasons for doing that? quid pro quo, can i say something on that, john? look. certain quid pro quos are illegal. i m from the city of allentown. the former mayor is in jail for exchanging government contracts in exchange for political contributions. this, again, i said this last week. if a member of congress had used his or her position to withhold federal support in exchange for an investigation of a political opponent, i suspect the department of justice, you know, would be crawling up that member s backside. and this person would have an enormous legal problem. so of course foreign assistance is conditioned in many cases, but to serve some national fwoel or e goal or end. that s why this this for that or quid pro quo shakedown is improper and potentially criminal. senator, you ve said you
this aid in this meeting, you have to give the bidens to the president? i don t think that s what it manes. i don t know that that s what sondland is going to testify to. none of us knows yet. if he does, it s according to the new york times. the narrative of quid pro quo now going to bribery now going to extortion all bribes are a quid pro quo. not all quid pro quos are a bribe. the only problem the democrats have is all of the star witnesses said there was none of that. they never used the term bribery or extortion. except for sondland. they were concerned about what he didn t remember. they don t get star witnesses. because the stars pompeo, mulvaney, bolton, they re not allowed to come here. you complain about not getting firsthand knowledge, you complain about not having it. we don t get our list either. we don t want to harp on process today, but that is a big issue. it s what my constituents are concerned about. why does adam schiff get to drive the whole thin
that being said they were at the white house, on the national security council. they saw and heard things, those at the state department and out in kyiv did not. a new piece up, and you argue that the impeachment hearings evicerate the president and show how he broke the rules. reads in part, there are regular things that u.s. emissaries do that involve quid pro quos or conditions. why is it okay and how is it different from what the president did here? let s look at how these exchanges work in diplomacy. we ask for certain conditions, access to military forces, access to certain political leaders or decisions, but we always look out through a process and weigh those asks against other interests that the united states have. none of that took place here. i actually would go so far to