Overheard Trump Sondland phone call

Originally posted by Glug ↑

"....Where's the bit in the transcript that has Trump saying there'll only be funding if there's an investigation?...."

Right next to the bit where Trump says he is concerned about corruption.

Seriously though, the QPQ is in the transcripts:-

Zelenskyy

Trump

Zelenskyy

Zelenskyy wants missiles, Trump stipulates a condition (a favor), Zelenskyy agrees to the favor.
(Quid Pro Quo.)

The plot was discovered prior to its' completion.
Funding was eventually released because it was about to expire ($30m did expire).

I'm comfortable that the transcripts show Trump has done what has been claimed, you are welcome to have your own view about the transcripts. If the trial turns out to be an actual trial, they can argue the merits of the transcript as evidence of wrong doing or not.

"...the Democratic chairman said there was no quid quo pro in the transcript. What are you seeing that was missed by the chairman?...."

Maybe you can post a link to what he said and the context, as it is a bit hard to work out why others see a QPQ in the transcripts, as per whoever taught Trump Latin before Sondland called him, and why others raised concern about the call, and why White House legal moved the call details to a secure sever.

"....You still won't discuss the ludicrous Sondland's addendum which was a sort of crazy "he told me that someone else told him ..."...."

Just a sideshow, nothing to discuss, other evidence is sufficient to show what Trump has done.
(Sondland tried to protect Trump, realized he was at risk for lying, and change/added to his testimony, twice)

"....The sane Democrats will now be shaking their collective heads. Having rushed this impeachment hearing through and, correspondingly, seen their popularity dip....."

That is their problem, (but as it is still playing out, we'll have to wait and see the end result).

Expand

Re "I'm comfortable that the transcripts show Trump has done what has been claimed, you are welcome to have your own view about the transcripts. If the trial turns out to be an actual trial, they can argue the merits of the transcript as evidence of wrong doing or not."

Well at best it's tenuous. As I said earlier I don't think it's anywhere near clear enough. One leader asking another for a favour but there's no evidence it was conditional on funding beyond a bit of verbal extrapolation and, in reality, that is how it played out, there was no link. I understand you think that was because Trump was warned, but again that is open to interpretation. In comparison to Clinton, the blue dress is clean imo.

Re "Sondland tried to protect Trump, realized he was at risk for lying, and change/added to his testimony, twice)" l agree that he lied and was worried hence the nonsensical addendum. In my opinion, that rules out any merit his account might provide.

"That is their problem, (but as it is still playing out, we'll have to wait and see the end result)."

I guess so, but if the Democrats (Pelosi) don't push on with this, then you'll know for sure that this is not about preserving democracy and the constitution, but instead just grubby politics.