Fake news

Not really. In the first part he said the former and in the second part he said the latter. Some said he contradicted his own testimony. The whole charade is useless.

Some are not capable of following timelines as the phone call with Trump where he insists that he “wanted nothing” was on the same day the White House became aware of the whistleblower complaint. So it can be argued that phone call is not enough evidence to dismiss the timeline of events before that claim by the President. If anything it makes him seem more guilty to get the “story straight” to anyone who might have been in the loop.

Trump wins again

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2HaI0fVyFYg&t=255s

You seem confused by Sondland's testimony. That somehow there needs to be verbal confession of some sort to convict Donald Trump of abusing his power. There doesn't.

And what does there need to be?

There already is enough evidence presented through the timeline of aid, why it was withheld, and Trump's documentation of the phone call. However, we may get more information as video and audio evidence is being reviewed now. Not that we need, anything more damning than the evidence already presented but we'll just have to see about that.

Can you be more specific? What exactly has Trump done? Is any of it impeachable or is it just something you don't like?

You're doing the cliche:

Liberal: Trump is guilty
Me: Of what?
Liberal: Crimes.
Me: what crimes?
Liberal: Bad crimes.
Me: Can you be more specific?
Liberal: Look it up.
Me: I have but I can't find anything. Perhaps I'm biased. Can you show me?
Liberal: I don't have to show you anything. Trump's guilty.

Very good. That is true.

Now show me that Trump did it.

It's moot.

Only by the fact that the Senate will neither convict nor remove the President for his unconstitutional and criminal behavior.

That's a fart in a stiff wind. The only reason the Dems are pushing this farce is because they know they can't win the next election, and fear investigation into FISAgate, Russiagate, Ukriane, etc. The Mueller investigation + Impreachment hearing = the longest filibuster in Congressional history

That would be speculative hearsay...

Wait and see then.

There sure are a lot of Jeffrey's on imgflip.

He testified that he assumed that a quid pro quo existed, but had no evidence and that Trump said otherwise when asked.

And the media outlets cherry picked their facts to manipulate their viewers.

If the average uninformed person only sees one of those headlines, what conclusion will they overreach about Trumps activity with Ukraine?

Two very different ones depending on what channel they've tuned into. Ignorance is the media's best weapon and they use it extremely proficiently.

I just had someone tell me that Trump was guilty because an announcement of an investigation was what Trump which came from Sondland's quid pro quo statement.

"an announcement of an investigation was what Trump which came from Sondland's quid pro quo statement."

I've heard that too, or something along those lines that someone told me someone else heard. Actually, I'm just assuming I have.

NO only you let others think for you, I listened to what he said and knew the threat he is under as the left rally to attack him, His hotels are being attacked and death threats common.

The guilty will frequently claim to be not so. Especially as evidence is mounted against them. And they foolishly release documentation of phone calls that show them breaking the law, unaware that it’s enough to start a formal investigation.

wait an see , no crime has happened uve tds

Wait and see what?

It is a crime to withhold aid in return for dirt on domestic political opponents.

TDS is propaganda drivel, and makes you sound like an idiot.