Maybe going to jail for perjury focuses the mind and improves the memory?

Quoting CNN reporting . . .

“In a stunning twist, a top US diplomat revised his testimony to confirm the existence of a quid pro quo. Gordon Sondland, the US ambassador to the EU, now says that he did, in fact, tell a top aide to the Ukrainian President that US security aid was linked to investigations into former Vice President Joe Biden and the 2016 election.”

18 thoughts on “Maybe going to jail for perjury focuses the mind and improves the memory?

  1. “They can’t change the rules. They follow the rules. And when were the rules written last? In January of 2015. And who signed them? John Boehner. And who enacted them? A Republican majority,” Napolitano explained.

    Oops.

    Liked by 4 people

    1. I’ve got a feeling there are going to be a few more “Rut Roo” moments for the cabal that couldn’t lie straight before it’s all said and done.

      When will people learn; it’s ALWAYS the cover-up.

      Liked by 3 people

  2. RE: “In a stunning twist, a top US diplomat revised his testimony to confirm the existence of a quid pro quo.”

    So what? Quid pro quos are a normal feature of diplomacy. Joe Biden, for example, bragged about his.

    Like

    1. The narrative is shifting before our very eyes. Just a few weeks ago it was, “there is obviously no quid pro quo, just read the transcript! You’d have to be a moron or politically motivated to see a quid pro quo here.”

      Now, we have arrived at, “So what? Quid pro quos are a normal feature of diplomacy.” followed by the inevitable tu quoque (more Latin!).

      You love to see it.

      Liked by 4 people

      1. The GOP is trying to leave the 10,000 pound gorilla in the corner and hoping no one will notice.

        The tit for tat explanation that it is “done all the time” in foreign policy negotiations is ONLY true if it is being done in support of our National Interests. Using it for personal or political gain is not only an abuse of power; it is illegal.

        52 USC 30121

        Tiresome defense and frankly not very bright of them and their supporters.

        Liked by 3 people

      2. RE: “The narrative is shifting before our very eyes.”

        Only if you’re hallucinating.

        There is no quid pro quo in the transcript of Trump’s phone call. Since the pro-impeachment people can’t use the transcript to make their case, they are trying to use ancillary testimony to support the quid pro quo narrative. But quid pro quo itself is not criminal or even an abuse of power.

        I, for one, pointed out both observations in this very forum several weeks ago.

        Like

        1. It was not a transcript. It was notes that we now know were edited to cover-up the crime that got the White House staff in a tizzy the moment the call ended. But even those edited notes show the criminal quid pro quo very clearly. If you claim not to see it you are either a liar or very gullible. No third choice.

          As for your fall back position – “quid pro quo itself is not criminal or even an abuse of power” – it is a crime when the quo is a BRIBE – something of value demanded by the crook providing the quid.

          Here is an excerpt from the United States Constitution . . .

          The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, BRIBERY, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

          BRIBERY!

          Liked by 2 people

    2. However, in Biden’s case it had absolutely nothing to do with political assistance. Trump is BEGGING foreign governments to help him in 2020. But seeing as you had no issue with Russian influence in 2016, and possibly was even influenced by the misinformation campaign, no one is surprised that you think what Trump is doing is just fine.

      Once Roger Stone stops eating out and getting prison food, maybe he’ll stop having bouts of food poisoning.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. RE: “However, in Biden’s case it had absolutely nothing to do with political assistance.”

        We don’t know that to be true. Indeed, the facts at hand actually suggest otherwise, particularly Biden’s attempt to reap political advantage by boasting about his quid pro quo.

        RE: “Trump is BEGGING foreign governments to help him in 2020.”

        We don’t know that to be true, either. Again, the facts at hand suggest other inferences which are equally or more plausible.

        RE: “But seeing as you had no issue with Russian influence in 2016, and possibly was even influenced by the misinformation campaign, no one is surprised that you think what Trump is doing is just fine.”

        If you are addressing that comment to me, you are making baseless claims. In fact, you are guessing at reading my mind when in reality I have stated my view of Russia’s 2016 meddling very clearly on many occasions:

        • It was ineffective. Even the famous report of the intelligence community that Obama commissioned said so (no votes were changed).
        • It was minor. To the extent Russia’s meddling influenced public opinion, it did so in the context of our free speech culture such that only violations of free speech norms could have prevented it. Russia’s influence on public opinion amounts to a signal lost in the noise.

        • All of Russia’s hacking that we know about would have been prevented by standard, defensive IT procedures. To the extent those procedures were not followed, that is the fault of IT shops that didn’t do their jobs.

        So, No, I don’t have “no issue with Russian influence in 2016.” I do have an issue with blowing it out of proportion.

        Like

        1. RE: “You should use your ears and eyes to see the obvious”

          I’m happy to use my ears and eyes to listen to and understand what you have to say. What, exactly, is this “obvious” thing which you claim to be able to see?

          Like

        2. …”no votes were changed”… This time. However, the influence which you claim to be “minor” is still interference in our democratic process. My favorite story was the little old lady in Florida, who after being shown that her FB page contained an ad from the IRA, and told it was from the Russians, still refused to believe it. You seem to fall into the same category. Even after being shown the evidence, you ignore it. Or try to explain it away as nothing more than a gnat in your ear.; SAD!

          That you believe that it is no big deal tells me a lot more about your patriotism and concern for this country and that inviting influence, as Trump has done, (you may ignore it if you choose, but you do so at your own peril) is criminal, IMO.

          Liked by 2 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s