The Democrats on the left are having a feeding frenzy today after Ambassador Sondland said this during today's public Impeachment Hearing: "I know that members of this committee have frequently framed these complicated issues in the form of a simple question: 'Was there a 'quid pro quo?' Sondland went on to say: "With regard to the requested White House call and White House meeting, the answer is yes."
After hearing this so called confirmation of a quid pro quo, the Democrats went wild thinking they got him, they got President Trump and that's enough to impeach him. Is it? Is a so called quid pro quo an unthinkable act or is it commonplace in politics like Mick Mulvaney said a month or so ago when this first drew attention...
President Trump is clearly displeased about how today's hearing is going as he felt so compelled to address the issue in front of reporters at the White House to clarify what was really said to Sondland regarding a quid pro quo and the Ukrainians.
After a brief recess in today's hearing after the smoking gun comment was said with Ambassador Sondland saying there was a quid pro quo, Republicans fired back with questioning Ambassador Sondland regarding what clarifies as a quid pro quo...did the President say there were any preconditions, since that would be the definition of a quid pro quo, right?
The big question here is, whether there was or was not a so called quid pro quo arrangement with the Ukraine, is a quid pro quo an impeachable offense?
-Producer Lightning