Democrat Witness Intimidation of Sondland

That’s RIGHT! Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) called for a boycott of the Portland-based hotel chain that Sondland founded.

Could it be this has prompted Sondland to change his testimony for the THIRD time?

Inquiring minds want to know…

Yea, last I looked witness intimidation is illegal…but hey…it’s a democrat so nothing is illegal for them, only for those opposed to them or who don’t hate like they do…

Ambassador and Oregon hotelier Gordon Sondland faces backlash at home over role in Ukraine scandal - Los Angeles Times


Newsflash; Sondland didn’t change his testimony 3 times.

From 20 days ago:

1 Like

A bit late: Sondland has been giving evidence for the past 5 to 6 hours.


One should start with zero like all good systems programmers rather than one.

1 Like

That was back on Oct 12…before Sondland had ever testified at all…indeed back when it looked like he wouldn’t testify.

Major fail.


Nope. This is the new alternative truth now. It’ll probably stick around for a while.


Which talk media host mentioned it first?


Well at least you’re trying so I salute you.

1 Like

If true, it’s wrong and stupid. Indecency and ethical lapses are non-partisan.

1 Like

So ■■■■■■■ hilarious…

The date is even in the link. Desperate I guess…

But, since you’re so opposed to witness intimidation, I’ve got to know… how do you feel about the accusation against Trump and the fact that the Army now has to protect Vindman’s family?

sondland testified today that the protests were going on still today as far as he knew.

OCTOBER 12 :rofl:

Dig deeper homie.

NOw lets imagine Trump had asked for a boycott of Sondland’s hotels the day before he gave his public testimony…

Another article of impeachment, right?


Do you accept Sondland’s evidence that there was a quid pro quo as well?

Sondland gave no such evidence except as far as a meeting in his office. Even if admitted, no one is going to buy impeaching a President over terms for meeting him in his office.
As far as aid, Sondland said he presumed there was a quid pro quo. He gave no evidence of such.


Did Sondland testified there was a quid pro quo?

While I am on a roll: why won’t Bolton, Giuliani et al testify? Why won’t the White House release all the documentation?

Not hard to imagine. It would make headlines for one day and then be completely forgotten about like 95% of the outrageous things he says and does.

Schiff would have stuck that into the articles as witness intimidation in a second.
It would have been labeled the equivalent of the Watergate pay offs.

1 Like

You wouldn’t know what to do if Schiff was half the attack dog that Devin Nunes is.

I know its true he would have done that because I put 2 and 2 together and came up with 4. Proof enough.