It’s been a while since I last got around to writing something for this blog… and also it will be a while longer yet, because I still haven’t gotten around to it. But I did write something for Just Security that’s worth checking out, on why Ambassador Gordon Sondland’s testimony about his phone call with President Trump cannot be true, and what he was trying to hide by changing his story.
From the article:
At the heart of the impeachment inquiry, members of Congress may have been mistakenly led to believe that there were two phone calls between President Donald Trump and Ambassador Gordon Sondland in early September—with the second call having the possibility of helping the President’s case. That’s not what happened. There was only one call, and it was highly incriminating.
The call occurred on September 7th. In this call, Trump did say there was “no quid pro quo” with Ukraine, but he then went on to outline his preconditions for releasing the security assistance and granting a White House visit. The call was so alarming that when John Bolton learned of it, he ordered his’ deputy Tim Morrison to immediately report it to the National Security Council lawyers.
Sondland has testified there was a call on September 9th in which Trump said there was “no quid pro quo,” but that he wanted President Zelenskyy “to do” the right thing. A close reading of the publicly available evidence shows that the latter call was actually the very one that sent Morrison to the lawyers, and that Ambassador Bill Taylor foregrounded in his written deposition to inform Congress of the quid pro quo.
As this article was in the publication process at Just Security, the Washington Post published a report raising doubts about the existence of the September 9 call. The analysis that follows is consistent with the Post’s report and, among other points, shows why Sondland’s “no quid pro quo” call is in fact the same as the September 7th call that Morrison reported to NSC lawyers on September 7th.
Didn’t you drink the Russia Kool Aid for the better part of two years? Trumps your president, Adnan murdered Hae. Move on with your life, have kids or something.
One of the reasons I thought there was so much sock puppetry going on among the guilter side of Reddit was the fact that such a high percentage of them also espoused pro-Trump views. Turns out there’s just a strong positive correlation between the two.
Nothing groundbreaking if you think about it, I suppose. This particular subgroup of people who all get one significant question wrong are more likely to get another important question wrong also. Basically people who aren’t good at being correct are also more likely to be wrong.
It turns out that water is wet and bears prefer defecating in wooded areas, also.
The only interesting distinction then is that the Adnan question is one of logic while the Trump question(s) could be classified as being one of logic or one of morality. Hm.
I love when keyboard warriors don’t leave a name. What a loser.
Thank you Susan.
Sent from my iPhone
That was a brilliant article, Susan. Thank you. It really was the final nail in the coffin of the No Quid Pro Quo lie.