left out a few leetle items from Kent’s testimony.
Link: https://apnews.com/468e0bcb51e74822a1f8cc11627a1c0d
(no message)
(no message)
Link: Schiff’s lead witnesses have no real evidence — and neither does he
(no message)
(no message)
The most important evidence is their state of mind as senior diplomats that U.S. POLICY had become that release of the aid was contingent on Ukraine announcing and conducting an investigation of a political rival of the prez. That’s not hearsay. It’s also bribery.
The second revelation was the overhearing of Orange directly discussing it over the phone. Will need the actual witnesses but the claim is that there are two.
Again, what would you be saying if these claims were being made against Obama?
When neither happened?
The Senate Republicans are salivating at the possibilities for running up the score during an election year.
And if Bolton or Mulvaney can testify by then, the score may get run up by the other side.
remotely associated with the whole impeachment effort. And those guys have a lot of skeletons in their closets.
(no message)
though is that there really isn’t much for Dems to hang their impeachment hat on. This is going nowhere at the end of the day. And if the rest of the hearings are similar, Trump won’t lose any support among the R’s or the voters.
I’m “working” from home this week so I was able to watch the whole thing. I actually thought it was interesting, but I imagine most people’s eyes rolled back in their heads.
The facts are not in dispute. This is becoming clear.
Pick up the phone and call your Representative to draw the line in the sand that you drew for yourself.
Link: https://forum.uhnd.com/forum/index.php?action=display&forumid=2&msgid=548673
Will it change minds though, prolly not, but who knows?
1. Dems - Trump "attempted" to coerce the Ukrainian president and that is an impeachable offense.
2. Rs - You can't know the President's state of mind regarding what he was asking. i.e. Was he genuinely concerned about corruption or was he purely trying to hurt a potential political opponent.
Both are plausible and as you say, probably not enough to sway anyone either way.
I do think that #1 is the only path the Dems have since ultimately none of the requests materialized. I also thought Taylor had one main chink in his armor. He stated definitively that he "clearly understood" that the quid pro quo was a precondition for releasing aid or allowing a White House meeting. That ultimately wasn't the case, so his "clear understanding" assertion falls apart. Again, tough to get inside the President's head.
cycle. He had never brought up corruption before with the Ukrainians and Ghouliani’s two pals personify it.
My issue with it is I have yet to hear the direct evidence that Orange ordered the aid held up because of the investigations.
I need that link to be sold on it.
Methinks that Bolton or Mulvaney would provide it, if truthful, but they are going ahead with this despite the Orange stonewall on their testimony.
He also asked about 2016 interference and about Crowd Strike. I did also find it interesting that Trump had given (and released) military aid in 2017, 2018 and 2019 prior to this particular assistance package.
foreign govt.
On the second point, timing. He wanted the Ukrainians to announce that THEY had launched a Biden investigation to badly damage him after he had announced.
(no message)
Of the corrupt pro Russian leaning government in place at that time.
You can't just blow that off.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
with the subsequent actions and communications wth Giuliani and Mulvaney and others hence it was clear it was extortion by POTUS for political play in US elections. He was clear it was the “State of Play”.
Absent additional evidence, I don't see any way to prove it.
Reflected in his notes and subsequent memos addressing the matter said. That was why he resigned. Remember, Taylor is a Trump hire. Taylor was in Ukraine at the behest of Trump. a guy Trump saw as, his guy and he couldn’t get behind that type of extortion. QPQ using another country was antithetical to American values and law.
and that didn’t go very well for him. All R talking points and Obama deflections. Lots of frustration.
(no message)
would indicate it was more impactful.
(no message)
I’m relying in part on Chris Wallace who doesn’t seem to have, or maybe he does have, TDS.