I see no evidence has been presented in support of this adversarial wording and conclusion. Such wording demonstrates itself to be biased.
It would be entirely unbiased and more reasonable to say simply that the assertion came from the president, is supported by the official transcript, and that no contrary, fact witness evidence has as yet been offered.
Democrat kangaroo court logic: Trump said no quid pro quo. Just because he said it isn’t proof that it was true. Lack of proof is proof of guilt. Impeach!
I don’t believe this is about PDJT telling someone there was no quid pro quo in the phone conversation.
As I have read from the beginning, Sondland was saying that Trump had directed his diplomatic representatives that there would be no quid pro quo offered for anything they were asking Ukraine to do.
Had Trump said “yes, there is” it would be PROOF of a quid pro quo. If he says “no, there is not”, it’s clearly proof there is.
Only in America.
There is no evidence that Sondland was on the call, at most he got a readout. The text messaging with the other ambassador was in mid September, after Schiff had already insinuated that there was a quid pro quo, so logically PDJT, seeing a set-up getting ready to be executed, would have ensured that Sondland knew that there was no quid pro quo.
Trump never said that he stopped beating his wife either!