Fake News: Media(D) Runs With Narrative That Trump ‘Contradicted’ Ambassador Sondland’s Testimony

Written by K. Walker on November 20, 2019

There’s just one problem — President Trump was QUOTING Ambassador Sondland directly.

Some have said that the impeachment inquiry is one great big Rorschach test on what you think about President Trump — if you think he’s guilty, it’s damning. If you think that the Democrats are butthurt from the 2016 election and scared about Trump being reelected in 2020, then you don’t think that anything said has been questionable at all.

Personally, I think it’s all a big sham.

To me, it appears to be an attempt by Democrats and their buddies in the Deep State and the Media(D) to wrench back control from the bull in the china shop who is “doing everything wrong” by returning to Constitutional norms and separating powers that have been mingling over the last few administrations. It’s to punish those who dare think that the American people can make decisions about their leadership and the direction of the country that the elites don’t like. It’s a big message to right-leaning non-globalists: we must conform — or they’ll go after us. It’s one of those, “Nice Republic you’ve got there… it’d be a shame if something were to happen to it.” 

They’ve been after Trump since Day 1.

Nutters like Rep. Maxine Waters(D-CA) have been itching to impeach President Trump for any possible reason. It was the emoluments clause, then Russian-collusion, Stormy Daniels, and now it’s all about Ukraine.

This impeachment has shifted more times than James McAvoy did when he played the crazy dude in that 2016 flick by M. Night Shyamalan. In just a few days, this impeachment inquiry has shifted from quid pro quo to “bribery” after some Democrat polling and the insistence of the Media(D) in changing the language.

Nothing can be more clear that the Media(D) is out for the President than the way that they have handled Trump’s European Union Ambassador, Gordon Sondland’s testimony today and POTUS’s reaction to it.

(Note that at the time of writing, Ambassador Sondland’s testimony is ongoing.)

Here is the accepted narrative based on Ambassador Sondland’s testimony so far:

President Trump reacted. Many have said that he shouldn’t react to witnesses, but well, let’s face it, President Trump isn’t exactly the poster boy for restraint especially when it’s a direct attack against him.

Frankly, for someone who has been under attack since the day he was elected, has faced calls for his impeachment by political rivals, been heavily attacked daily by the Media(D), and has half of the country refusing to acknowledge him as the Commander In Chief, he’s actually shown incredible restraint.

He hit back today by directly quoting the “damning” witness.


Here is the testimony that President Trump was quoting directly:

Yet, the Media(D) went straight to the “TRUMP CONTRADICTS SONDLAND!” headlines.

Less than one hour later, however…

H/T to @MustangGirl3:

So, now let’s unpack this testimony a wee bit…

Ambassador Sondland testified that it was Rudy Giuliani’s request to get a public statement from Ukraine announcing an investigation into DNC servers and Burisma in order to get a White House visit that Sondland had considered that as quid pro quo. Sondland testified that he was opposed to withholding aid and that “Giuliani was expressing the desires of the President of the United States.” He then heard that the security aid was withheld and because he wasn’t given a reason that he was satisfied with, he “came to the conclusion” that the aid would not resume until the public statement was made, ergo it was definitely quid pro quo… at least in the mind of Ambassador Sondland.

Rep. Mike Turner’s questions make this perfectly clear that this whole thing is based on Ambassador Sondland’s presumption of quid pro quo.

To sum up, Ambassador Sondland didn’t confirm his suspicion with anyone and then his conversation with President Trump directly contradicts his presumption.

And yet, you know that all of the headlines in the Media(D) will report the “Bombshell!” that Ambassador Sondland says that there was quid pro quo without admitting that this was all Sondland’s presumption.

Riddle me this, Dear Reader, how is this quid pro quo worse than the quid pro quo below?

Or how about Obama promising Russia “flexibility” on missile defense?

Or perhaps the Obama admin turning a blind eye on Hezbollah growing into a billion-dollar-a-year crime syndicate by trafficking drugs and weapons while committing other crimes in order to protect the crappy Iran deal.

Should they have been impeached for any of those?


You Might Like
ClashDaily's Associate Editor since August 2016. Self-described political junkie, anti-Third Wave Feminist, and a nightmare to the 'intersectional' crowd. Mrs. Walker has taken a stand against 'white privilege' education in public schools. She's also an amateur Playwright, former Drama teacher, and staunch defender of the Oxford comma. Follow her humble musings on Twitter: @TheMrsKnowItAll