NEVER QUOTE ME TO ME!!!!!
This wouldn't surprise me, and would give a good explanation for Trump's actions, but I'm going to wait for a better source before I take it to the bank.https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...e-call-Saudi-Prince-nonsense-White-House.html
They were talking about this today.
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/20...ard-Call-Blackmailed-Trump-over-Syrian-Troops
this dude has to be the worst president ever.
Someone thought up something bad that Trump (or in this case someone associated with Trump) could have done so they published it with no evidence and now we need to debate whether it might be true? Think about how ridiculous this has gotten.https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...e-call-Saudi-Prince-nonsense-White-House.html
They were talking about this today.
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/20...ard-Call-Blackmailed-Trump-over-Syrian-Troops
this dude has to be the worst president ever.
This encapsulates Sondland so well:
Yes. He was clearly not telling the truth initially, but then after several other people testified about those events under oath he decided he should fix his earlier testimony so he doesn't get charged with perjury.Does it seem at all odd to you that he didn't recall these "facts" when testifying the first time? What a clown show.
It's almost like he lied the first time, and then he was caught in that lie. Puzzling indeed.Does it seem at all odd to you that he didn't recall these "facts" when testifying the first time? What a clown show.
Let's check in and see how congressional Republicans are handing today's events.
Reminder, this is what Graham said a month ago-
Things are going great!
Yes. He was clearly not telling the truth initially, but then after several other people testified about those events under oath he decided he should fix his earlier testimony so he doesn't get charged with perjury.
Someone thought up something bad that Trump (or in this case someone associated with Trump) could have done so they published it with no evidence and now we need to debate whether it might be true? Think about how ridiculous this has gotten.
My recollection was that Schiff et al were salivating over the things Sondland initially said. They considered him to be a very cooperative, supportive witness. Your claim is that he was somehow trying to protect the president in that earlier testimony and now he's become convinced to tell the truth? I admit that I am not hanging on every word of this process like some people around here seem to be, but the claim that he suddenly remembered such a central meeting in this entire thing strikes me as incredibly odd.Yes. He was clearly not telling the truth initially, but then after several other people testified about those events under oath he decided he should fix his earlier testimony so he doesn't get charged with perjury.
You've got to be kidding me. It's believable for what reason?And yet completely believable, this was being reported on the ABC yesterday (australia's bbc) couched in language of single source.
You've got to be kidding me. It's believable for what reason?
the claim that he suddenly remembered such a central meeting in this entire thing strikes me as incredibly odd.