The mainstream media is at it again.
Recently, U.S. ambassador to the Ukraine Gordon Sondland revised his impeachment hearing testimony in a move that had Democrats and the media rushing to claim that it was the smoking gun confirming a “quid pro quo” in the Ukraine scandal. But it turns out that it was all a lie.
Joel Pollack, the senior editor at Brietbart, points out in a fact check article:
Sondland said that he “presumed” there was a “quid pro quo.” But he did not have any first-hand knowledge of one, and other witnesses have testified that there was no such “quid pro quo” at all.
Of course, it’s worth pointing out that there’s no issue with a quid pro quo in foreign policy in the first place. In fact, it’s a technique that the Democrat House itself has used.
All of this presumes there is something wrong with a “quid pro quo.” But even that seems untrue. In fact, “quid pro quo” arrangements are normal in diplomacy. A House bill passed recently by Democrats would establish a “quid pro quo” that bars Russia from access even to private U.S. funds until it can be shown not to have interfered in U.S. elections. Trump, Democrats say, sought his personal or political interest; it also happened to be a national interest.
The Ukraine scandal is nothing but a political chisel that the Democrats are using to chip away at President Trump’s 2020 chances. Will they succeed?