TIME Bombshell Blows Up Sondland Testimony

Rush Limbaugh.com ^ | December 12, 2019 | Rush Limbaugh

[dware]

It doesn’t faze the Democrats because this has never been about fact,

And attempting to counter them with facts, we already lose. No, this has nothing to do with the facts. This has EVERYTHING to do with the fact that the left is comprised of ourely evil, dirty, filthy, disgusting, putrid individuals who hate America and want to see her destroyed, the sooner the better.

[Huskrrrr]

Rush was at his best today.

[Pearls Before Swine]

"Buffers. Yeah, the Family had a lot of buffers."

That's the message Schiff and Nadler are trying to get across, no matter what anyone involved says.

[SkyDancer]

TIME reporter to be fired.

[harpu]

VERY Interesting...indeed.

[piasa]

Sounds to me like the women’s claims against Sondland - and the boycott against his and his wife’s businesses- are part of a blackmail effort to force him to play in the Democrat’s theater.

[Verginius Rufus]

Look at that photo of Trump with Zelensky. Trump is wearing a red tie. Bright red tie.

If that isn't meant to show the world that he's Putin's puppet, I don't know what would be.

/s

[ptsal]

TIME reporter to be fired promoted.

[RummyChick]

Collins stormed out of the hearing over the repeated claim that Ukranians died because of the aid. He was pissed. But it was probably for dramatic effect and to go give a presser.

[faucetman]

THIS is why I can’t listen to Rush anymore.

WHAT A WINDBAG! OMG! This is why his show has to be 3 hours long, because it takes him that long to make one point!

[odawg]

I tried to listen to him tell what the bombshell was, had to leave, came back, he still would not come out with it, had to leave again. Don’t want to revisit that long monologue, so I still have no clue what the bombshell is/was.

[monkeyshine]

Sondland is new at this, a billionaire who wanted to become a diplomat. He doesn't know the players. It is entirely possible his 'revised testimony' is inaccurate in that he remembers he told somebody something, but maybe he didn't actually tell the Ukrainian government. He just told Taylor, or some other diplomat from somewhere else. Even in his revised testimony he waffled about whether he repeated - and of course, he said with certainty that this message did not come from Trump himself, that it was just his assumption.

[cymbeline]

Someone testified today that Trump said publicly, I think to a group of reporters, that he wanted the Ukraine government to investigate activities by one or both of the Bidens.

It doesn’t bother me at all if Trump did that, but his desire to have the Bidens investigated is one of the articles of impeachment, isn’t it?

Is Rush claiming that Trump never expressed that desire?

I’m confused.

[monkeyshine]

Sondland claimed in his revised statement that he ‘thinks’ he told Yermak, the Ukrainian president’s adviser, that Trump wanted an announcement about a Burisma investigation. The Bombshell is that Yermak told Time that Sondland never said anything about it.

[jdsteel]

This, and the recent Rolling Stone article saying how badly the Democrats were burned in the IG report.

Yes, the butt covering is beginning. Too little too late, though.

[rx]

Sondland's amended testimony about pulling Yermak aside and telling him that the aid was contingent on those two things simply sounds to have been constructed as a magic bullet plank to fill a gap that was otherwise missing from the Democrats' narrative.

Sondland's interchange with PDJT wherein President Trump said, "No quid pro quo" makes the story contained in his amendment completely incongruous to a confirmed reality. That the sound-memoried Yermak disputes it ever having taken place, plus that Sondland never pulled Yermak aside in any private conversation (to which others and camera footage may attest) makes the preponderance of the evidence in favor of Sondland's recollection being bogus.

A first step for the Dems would have to be to get their hands on a tape showing Sondland pulling Yermak aside, but they won't feel under such an obligation because that's not really the construction material of their narrative.

Democrats can't honestly build an impeachment this way. It certainly violates Nanzi Pelousi's claim of their being prayerful about it.

If NP is listening to the Catholic God to whom she claims to be praying, THIS IS HER ANSWER! The House has gotten its answer to prayer and that answer is that the House cannot impeach with the preponderance of the evidence being against their false narrative!

[odawg]

Thanks. Why couldn’t Rush just come out with it.

[monkeyshine]

You got that right. I don’t recall exactly what Sondland’s revised statement said, nor why he revised it the way he did. As I recall it went from “I said nothing” to “oh, yeah, maybe I said something”. But he was called out specifically for not quoting Trump saying “I want nothing, no quid pro quo” in his prepared remarks. And this quote was also substantiated by contemporaneous texts. Something fishy in all that - maybe Sondland did say something to someone (Taylor?) and doesn’t have a specific recollection of whom.

But as you said, there is nothing there to impeach over. Sondland says he assumed this is what Trump wanted, even though Trump told him explicitly the opposite, he can’t confirm that he ever really conveyed this assumption to Ukraine, and Ukraine denies they ever heard it from him. Case closed. There is no evidence at all regarding a quid pro quo of any kind.

The best the Dems have here is that “Trump wanted foreigners to investigate a political opponent” which may sound a little devious when phrased exactly in that way. But when you break it down, investigating corruption is perfectly appropriate - and especially political corruption. It is ludicrous to expect the sitting POTUS to never inquire about what his predecessors were doing. And when Biden bragged about blackmailing Ukraine of course he would want to know what the hell it was all about. Biden’s standing as a candidate for nomination of a party has no real bearing to the issue, except when you think it over if he actually is a corrupt old man we should all want to know it before he gets on a ballot! The whole thing is so stupid I don’t know where to begin or end the arguments about it.

So ultimately the Dems have no case. They had to railroad the POTUS with bogus, rigged hearings, denying him or the minority party their witnesses and specific questions etc. It was in itself political interference, a hit job coordinate with the media as an accomplice. And when they did their presser the other day they said things like “we can’t let him steal another election” when we all know he was innocent of the charge of Russian collusion (even Mueller found no evidence) and there was no attempt to steal this one, either... as if Biden is somehow destined to be the nominee (the way Hillary was destined to become POTUS?).

The real question to ask here is why are the Dems reacting so aggressively on this particular issue for which there is very little evidence of wrongdoing on the part of the POTUS. To me their reaction is highly suggestive of the fact that Trump has hit a nerve and that there is a lot of Dem dirt to be found looking into Ukraine and Ukrainian aid. The more you look at it - the way Biden blackmailed them, the fact that Obama sent no military aid, looked the other way as Russia invaded Crimea, Soros and the US Embassy setting up their own separate Ukraine public corruptions investigations units, the allegations that the US Embassy told Ukrainian prosecutors who to investigate and who to leave alone, the $150 million Russian donation to Clinton, the payments for speeches etc - you have to suspect that the Dems are trying to deflect from something nasty.

[smvoice]

Bkmk