I think so; he as well as other Democrats. I’m pretty sure of it; my neighbors and I all agree that that is what his intent was, and although I don’t have firsthand knowledge of backroom conspiring, we have circumstantial evidence. As one Democratic representative has said, “Circumstantial evidence is better than firsthand evidence,” er-a-er, maybe I have that wrong, maybe he said secondhand evidence is better than firsthand evidence.”
It really doesn’t matter, unless we are seeking the truth-and they are not.
Here is my slant, and I should get the Pulitzer Prize for it, because it beats the socks off ANYTHING the mainstream journalists are doing.
I heard from secondhand sources, and I’m sure it can be documented (I’ll serious about this one) that a representative from Oregon named Earl Blumenauer put a boycott on Ambassador Sondland’s hotel properties in Oregon until he testified against Trump. I assume Antifa and others would make sure that the boycott extended to all properties owned by the Sondland’s wherever those hotels are.
Under the pale of these hooligan machinations, Sondland opened his testimony with a 20+ page statement, which did not include the relevant fact that he knew, i.e. the president specifically told Sondland, “I want nothing! I want nothing! I do not want quid pro quo. I want him ( the Ukraine president) to do what’s right.” It took Jim Jordan to bring this fact out in cross examination.
It was the key thing that Sondland was a firsthand party to, and when he left it out, Blumenauer said to Sondland, “Welcome to the resistance,” and then the boycott was lifted. This is clear, strong evidence of witness intimidation, and Blumenauer and associated Democrat operatives need to be investigated, and possibly prosecuted. And frankly this kind of intimidation causes serious harm to the civil governance in this country and this type of heavy handed attempt to thwart and manipulate any person’s freedom of speech needs to be aggressively punished to the full extent of the law.
It sure is a clearer example of witness intimidation than when Trump tweeted why he had fired Ex-Ambassador Yovanovitch months before. To quote Trump,” “Everywhere Marie Yovanovitch went turned bad. She started off in Somalia, how did that go? Then fast forward to Ukraine, where the new Ukrainian President spoke unfavorably about her in my second phone call with him. It is a U.S. President’s absolute right to appoint ambassadors.”
Schiff called that witness intimidation. I believe Schiff cannot distinguish “embarrassing” from “intimidating”. Possibly he should be called before the Senate and asked to explain how the above statement is intimidating and Representative Blumenauer’s actions are not.
He can always claim stupidity as a defense.
Furthermore, I’ve heard, secondhand, that Sondland’s family was threatened several times. I don’t know if this is true, but the evidence is stronger than any evidence they have on Trump, and these allegations need to be investigated.
Further examples of implicit intimidation of key witnesses is the continual use of secondary and tertiary non-“witnesses” who gabbing like school children parade out statements like: “I heard from someone else”, “We all agreed that he meant quid pro quo, even though it never was said”, and other such statements inferring intent. It’s what children make up when they are brought before the school principal and they are trying to deflect blame from themselves.
And that could be the issue here, because just about all of these second and third hand witnesses were on the Obama-Biden team when the Biden-Ukraine mess went down. This whole impeachment thing could be a bum’s rush to get the public to “ignore those people behind the curtain.”
That might explain Schiff’s childish logic full of flamboyant declarations and pronouncements and his parade of thirdhand witnesses arguing desperately like children in front of the grade school principal with: “He said, she said that he said, we all agreed that he meant to say, or that he believed, or that he wanted…..
But what is the purpose of all this second and third hand testimony? Schiff knows it has no merit. So why do it?
Is it witness intimidation, but more subtle. Pretend that you are in the principal’s office and these kids are yammering all this second and third hand stuff, and finally after an hour of their accusations and exaggerations, the principal turns to you and says, “Well, Sally, you were there. You heard it firsthand. What really happened?”
And all of the kids who have been conjuring up the fiction are staring at you; and you know that after this is over, you have to go back to the playground with them.
Is that witness tampering in the most diabolic fashion, or not? They have made movies about moral dilemmas created by such gossip and sinister plotting. Maybe that is why real courts don’t allow second and third hand rumors, and aggregated coffee shop suppositions to be presented.
That is why this charade needs to be exposed for what it is, and every abuse of individual rights and justice needs to be turned back on those who created them. I hope Justice Roberts is willing to excise every impropriety and discipline the guilty parties, then possibly dismiss the proceedings as a total abridgement of our justice system.