Something smells pretty bad in this Schiff-show, and it hovers as a noxious cloud over the opening statements of the SHAMpeachment witnesses so far in public hearings.
The foul stench emanates most notably from first-hand witnesses, all of whose opening statements damning Pres Trump then contradict themselves during testimony. Now, we hear on the Limbaugh 3rd segment today that witness intimidation is involved also.
Ambassador Sondland read from a 23+page opening statement he (supposedly) wrote addressing the alleged ‘quid-pro-quo’ requirements Pres Trump was pushing on the Ukraine: in it, he made it appear that indeed the President did commit such an act…
…yet, then testified in the same public hearing that the President stated he wanted nothing from the Ukrainian president…specifically, he didn’t want a ‘quid-pro-quo’…
…all he wanted was for the Ukrainian president ‘to do the right thing.’
But, Sondland didn’t put that pivotal detail in his opening statement? Hmmm Why?
It seems the ambassador owns hotel interests, and it is being reported that those hotels were being boycotted since October by Democrats in advance of his testimony.
If that’s not witness intimidation, what is?
This smells like work Andrew Weismann is known for: we’ll not be surprised to learn that not only is he behind intimidations, but wrote lying opening statements for ‘witnesses.’
(And, wow…it’s reported Weismann’s tied in with Ukrainian dirty tricks.) Hmmm
Witness intimidation; non-existent crimes created; selectively withholding exculpatory information; it’s what this Democrat operative/lawyer does best, over and over again.
(As on full display during the Trump-Russia collusion HOAX.)