LogFAQs > #931140861

karlpilkington4 posted...

It didnt lack any context, you simply dont like the content. And me making a simple mistake doesnt suddenly make my entire post incorrect. The ambassador stated in his conversation with Trump, that Trump didnt want a quid pro quo, he didnt want anything in exchange.

Again, whats so hard to understand?

the context, which your post lacked, which I have posted elsewhere and am again posting here. saying you want nothing in exchange to a potential witness when you have already demanded from your victim does not exonerate you from having committed a crime.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/trump-sondland-denial-ukraine-quid-pro-quo-915283/

Sondland said he knew by then the administration had frozen nearly $400 million in security aid to Ukraine to help in an ongoing regional conflict with Russia. According to Sondland, Trump repeatedly told him on the call I want nothing and there was no quid pro quo. Sondland then relayed the presidents words to the new Ukrainian ambassador, William Taylor, who had become concerned about the administrations pressure campaign on Ukraine. My reason for telling (Taylor) this was not to defend what the president was saying, Sondland testified, not to opine whether the president was being truthful or untruthful, but simply to relay Ive gone as far as I can go in trying to understand what Trump wanted from the Ukrainians.

The timing of Sondlands call matters: That same day, the inspector general for the Intelligence Community notified the House and Senate that an anonymous whistleblower had filed a complaint, which the public would soon learn describing the broad contours of Trumps campaign to force Ukraine to interfere in the 2020 election. Its likely Trump knew the committee had received the complaint, and that that knowledge informed his call with Sondland.

---

LittleBigPlanet is like merging dress-up with a real game.