It clear from the impeachment hearings that Vindman, Volker, Yovanovitch, Sondland and others have no clue on what is the legal meaning of Quid Pro Quo. Sondland used this term in his second testimony which contradicted the first one and should be investigated for perjury. Also if there his accusation has no legal basis he might be sued for defamation and incitement of a divisive plot.
If we connect the dots we can conclude that he was coached to use that term by the impeachment colluders in order to promote an hate agenda against the president and cover up the corruption that emerges from the actions of DNC persons of interest and Biden in Ukraine/Russia and the rigging the 2016 and 2018 elections.
Conveniently Sondland states that his selective memory was changing between the testimonies. The use of the term “QuidProQuo”, “Obstruction”, “Collusion” or “Bribery” was orchestrated by Adam Shciff who is holding a partisan investigation that doesn’t allow fair questioning or fair witness subpoena and promotes witness blacklisting, pressuring , coaching, bribing or threatening. This Modus Operandi is in plain sight when we review what Schiff gang did with Michael Cohen and others.
The terms are used at the same time in orchestration by CNN, NSNBC, WAPO, Pelosi and other biased politicians as a malevolent compliance to a directive of focus groups paid by Democrats. Those are trying for three years to remove the president at all costs while attacking his team 24/7 using biased journalists, biased bureaucrats, biased judges, biased jurors, biased academy, biased government contractors, biased poll companies, biased investigators, biased media shadow-banners and other paid agents .
The president has the right to circumvent and investigate the US embassy in Ukraine for no reason as part of the executive power vested in elections. The president has the moral duty of circumventing and investigating diplomats in Ukraine if there are indications that people there were involved in digging dirt, leaking or obstructing investigations on Biden, HRC, Soros or rigging the 2016 and 2018 elections.
Mr Sondland initially said that the “quid pro quo” he was referring to was the holding back of a White House meeting between Mr Trump and Mr Zelenskiy, which the latter, recently elected, was seeking. This, new accusation even if true is not a legal offence.
Sondland’s Quid Pro Quo allegation has nothing to do with the holding of military aid allegation that was already debunked. It was inserted by Schiff coaching team as an attempt to move the goal post. Even if true that a meeting was conditioned on some actions, it is not a quid pro quo legal offence. So the Schiff team led Sondland to say unfunded accusations knowing on their behalf. if Shchiff or some other lawyers would say what Sondland say they might run the risk of being disbarred, prosecuted, discredited. The idea of sending sondland to do their dirty work was to maximise the smear campaign and political damage to Trump .
Related Sources & Links
Sondland mentioning that “Trump Never Told Me Directly the Aid Was Conditioned on the Meetings”
Schiff refusal to bring exonerating testimonies
Broadening the Burisma-Tempelton investigation
Conviction on Burma Oligarchs implicating the Bidens