The fake news media are still trying to pretend Gordon Sondland’s train-wreck impeachment testimony Wednesday spells doom for President Trump.
It doesn’t.
Quite the opposite.
In fact, yesterday was a disaster for the media and Democrats, the worst day so far for an impeachment inquiry that is quickly exhausting the patience of the American people.
All the media got out of our ambassador to the European Union Wednesday was the soundbite they so desperately desired, a soundbite where a witness (who, like all the other impeachment “witnesses,” has witnessed nothing) said, “There was quid pro quo.”
Unfortunately for our media coup plotters, a soundbite is not evidence. But that won’t stop the lying media from playing that soundbite over and over and over again as though it is evidence.
The good news is that the fake media no longer control the flow of information, so here are all the facts the media are desperate to cover up about Sondland’s bizarre testimony, about his inconvenient lies and equally inconvenient truths that handed the Democrats yet another no good, very bad, terrible impeachment day.
- Sondland Has LESS THAN ZERO Evidence of Any Wrongdoing
After using his swaggering opening statement to pretend he had the goods on Trump and the entire administration — which suckered the fake media into slobbering all over themselves with “game over” and “new John Dean” tweets — we learned that he has no evidence whatsoever and that his “bombshell” soundbite is based only on a — get this — “presumption.”
“Nobody else on this planet told you that Donald Trump was tying this aid to the investigation,” asked a Republican questioner. “You really have no evidence.”
“Other than my own presumption,” Sondland admitted, as the air seemed to leak out of him.
And then came this bombshell…
“That was the problem,” Sondland confessed. “No one told me directly that the aid was tied to anything. I was presuming it was.”
Are you kidding me with this garbage?
It gets worse. Because even that was a lie because someone did tell Sondland something, which brings me to the next thing the media do not want you to know…
- Sondland’s Only Actual Evidence Exonerates Trump
“President Trump never told me directly that the aid was conditioned on meetings,” Sondland admitted.
“The aid was my own personal guess,” he added.
“I never heard from President Trump that aid was conditioned on an announcement of investigations,” Sondland admitted later.
However…
Trump did tell Sondland one thing… Trump explicitly told Sondland he wanted “nothing” from Ukraine. “No quid pro quo.”
- Investigating Biden *Is* Investigating Corruption
When he was president, Barack Obama put his vice president, Joe Biden, in charge of diplomatic relations with Ukraine. During this same time, the corrupt oligarch of a corrupt Ukrainian energy company paid Joe Biden’s son, Hunter, $50,000 a month — a month! — to sit on the board of this corrupt energy company, Burisma.
Fifty thousand a month — a month! — even though Hunter knows nothing about energy and doesn’t speak the local language.
Hunter made millions off this sweet deal.
And then, when a Ukrainian prosecutor decided to look into Burisma, Joe threatened to withhold U.S. aid if the prosecutor was not fired.
The prosecutor was fired.
That is a full-blown act of corruption, but still…
Our fake media are hoping to gaslight the American people into believing that Trump asking Ukraine to look into the Bidens’ looting of that country is different from asking Ukraine to look into corruption.
The reasons for the gaslighting campaign are obvious. The media are desperate to cover up the Bidens corruption while, at the same time, pulling off this coup with the false accusation that Trump was “digging up dirt on his opponent.”
No…
The fact is this: Trump asking Ukraine to look into Burisma and the Bidens *is* looking into corruption, which is what we expect our president to do when it comes to foreign aid.
Trump.
Did.
Nothing.
Wrong.
- You Can’t Have a Quid Pro Quo if Ukraine Didn’t Know
Someone should put that on a T-shirt.
How can there be a quid pro quo if Ukraine didn’t know there was a quid to quo?
Over and over and over again, we are being told Ukraine did not feel pressure, never said to anyone that the promise of aid was tied to anything.
Sadly for our coup plotters, this is one of the media’s inconvenient truths Sondland testified to, and what the media don’t want you to know is that this is a massive piece of exculpatory evidence…
“And you understood the Ukrainians received no credible explanation [for the pause in receiving aid], is that right?” the Democrats’ counsel, Daniel Goldman, asked.
“I certainly couldn’t give them one,” Sondland replied.
And there you have it… If Ukraine didn’t know, there can be no quid pro quo.
- The Resistance Tampered with Sondland’s Previous Testimony of No Quid Pro Quo
In October, Sondland testified at Schiff’s secret basement impeachment hearing that there was no quid pro quo. Afterwards, the anti-Trump Resistance bullied and threatened Sondland’s livelihood, his business, even his family.
Gee, you think that might have something to do with his offering up this “quid pro quo” soundbite that fell completely apart as soon as he was asked to back it up with something, anything…?
- Sondland Is the Worst Impeachment Witness in a Long Line of Terrible Witnesses
Get this…
So far, Democrats have not presented even a single witness who witnessed anything.
It is either third- and fourth-hand hearsay coming from these crybaby bureaucrats, or it’s whining about their precious “regular channels,” or it’s some lame attempt to reheat the transcript of the call in question into something it’s not — as though we have not already read the transcript.
Sondland is even worse.
Sondland doesn’t even have third- or fourth-hand testimony; all he has are his stupid presumptions that directly contradict what he was declaratively told by Trump himself.
- Suddenly Presidential Meetings with Preconditions Are a Bad Thing
This was not just goalpost moving on the part of the coup plotters… This was an on-the-spot crafting of a whole new goalpost using baby poop and fairy dust.
The Fart King Swalwell: A meeting at the White House. If someone really needs a meeting at the White House to show their legitimacy to their people, that leveraging that meeting and asking for an investigation would be wrong.
Sondland: To be candid, Congressman, every meeting at the White House has conditions placed on it. I have never worked on a meeting at the White House that doesn’t have a host of conditions placed on it.
Duh.
Fart King: If one of those conditions is to investigate a political opponent, you would agree that would be wrong.
Sondland: The political opponent, yes, but making announcements or investigations per se, no.
You see, I would have asked this question…
If one of the conditions of a White House visit is to open an investigation into the son of a powerful American politician who was paid $50,000 a month — a month! — by a corrupt Ukrainian energy company, even though the son had no energy experience and didn’t speak the language, and then this powerful American politician used U.S. aid to threaten Ukraine into firing a prosecutor investigating the corrupt energy company that hired his son — would that be appropriate?
But that’s just me… Silly me and my belief in truth.
And now, we come to my favorite piece of news the media do not want you to know…
- Sondland Admits Information He Was Unaware of Might Have Changed His ‘Presumption’
This moment took my breath away.
Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) spoke at length about a witness deposed in secret over the weekend, a witness who actually knows what happened with the foreign aid to Ukraine because that was this person’s job.
Nunes accused Adam Schiff of withholding this testimony from Sondland (Schiff disputes this), but that doesn’t matter. Sondland did not read this testimony and admitted to Nunes that had he read it, this might have changed his mind about his presumption of a quid pro quo.
NUNES: We’re not going to hear about what the real reason the person who’s in charge of making sure that foreign aid is delivered, we’re not going to hear about what actually happened with the foreign aid. Wouldn’t that had made it a lot easier for you to testify, instead of guessing … wouldn’t it be easier if you just knew exactly why the foreign aid wasn’t given?
SONDLAND: It would have been easier to testify if I had a totality of the record.
NUNES: And would you trust the person who’s in charge of cutting the checks for foreign aid, a top career diplomat, or the top career official?
SONDLAND: I’d have no reason not to.
Bet CNN isn’t playing that clip!
Follow John Nolte on Twitter @NolteNC. Follow his Facebook Page here.
COMMENTS
Please let us know if you're having issues with commenting.