Part III
CRITIQUE OF THE HOUSE PUBLIC IMPEACHMENT HEARING
November 13, 2019
CRITIQUE OF THE HOUSE PUBLIC IMPEACHMENT HEARING
November 13, 2019
Mr. Schiff (D-CA), the Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, opening statement began with an explanation of the hearing rules and format.
And, he gave a brief timeline of the unfolding of President Trump’s bribery scheme of Zelensky, the President of the Ukraine, from when it began early in the year with Guiliani’s investigation of the Bidens, the removal of the ambassador of the Ukraine in April, Bolton’s July 10th meeting at the White House, when he discovered the drug deal [bribery plot], the freeze of military aid on July 18th; the July 25th phone call, where Trump asked Zelensky for a favor: two investigations; in August, his team tried to set up a public announcement, in exchange, for releasing the aid and a White House meeting. After Trump’s lawyers learned of the whistleblower’s complaint and Congress began an investigation – the hold on military aid was lifted.
Subsequently, Trump tried to cover up these actions by refusing to allow his team to testify and blocking the release of documents subpoenaed by the House of Representatives.
The House of Representatives investigation into this scheme is for the purpose of determining whether these crimes warrant the impeachment of President Trump and the purpose of this public hearing by the House Intelligence Committee is to inform the public of these facts. Chairman Schiff asks, are we going to “get over it” as Mulvaney suggested—or enforce the law and bring to justice those engaged in criminal conduct to protect our democracy and national security.
And, he gave a brief timeline of the unfolding of President Trump’s bribery scheme of Zelensky, the President of the Ukraine, from when it began early in the year with Guiliani’s investigation of the Bidens, the removal of the ambassador of the Ukraine in April, Bolton’s July 10th meeting at the White House, when he discovered the drug deal [bribery plot], the freeze of military aid on July 18th; the July 25th phone call, where Trump asked Zelensky for a favor: two investigations; in August, his team tried to set up a public announcement, in exchange, for releasing the aid and a White House meeting. After Trump’s lawyers learned of the whistleblower’s complaint and Congress began an investigation – the hold on military aid was lifted.
Subsequently, Trump tried to cover up these actions by refusing to allow his team to testify and blocking the release of documents subpoenaed by the House of Representatives.
The House of Representatives investigation into this scheme is for the purpose of determining whether these crimes warrant the impeachment of President Trump and the purpose of this public hearing by the House Intelligence Committee is to inform the public of these facts. Chairman Schiff asks, are we going to “get over it” as Mulvaney suggested—or enforce the law and bring to justice those engaged in criminal conduct to protect our democracy and national security.
Mr. Nunes (R-CA), ranking Republican member, opening statement was totally false, he said, the impeachment hearing is “a carefully orchestrated media smear campaign by Democrats.”
He by-passes all the facts of Trump’s bribery-scheme of a foreign Leader and defends Trump, his party corrupt leader, by attacking the Democrats and evidence.
The Democrats voted for the probe.
Rep. Nunes says, they [Democrats] are trying to impeach the President for [Republicans] inquiring about Hunter Biden’s activities: I can’t believe he said that--that is ridiculous: it is about Trump’s bribery-extortion attempt of foreign leader and he says, yet, they refused our request to hear from Biden himself.
You want to hear from Hunter Biden, here is what he said about serving on the board of Burisma, while his father was the Vice President.
I’m a human. Did I make a mistake? Well, maybe in the grand scheme of things, yeah. But did I make a mistake based upon some ethical lapse. Absolutely not.
For the record, he has been cleared of corruption allegations: Trump’s investigation request is baseless and pernicious [aimed at tarnishing Joe Biden’s image], his top political rival in 2020.
Despite this fact, Rep. Nunes wants Hunter Biden investigated, as he subsequently states, and he calls the investigation of Trump’s bribery scheme -- a scam.
That is backwards [or perverse].
Here is one more of Nunes’ distortions: this impeachment is doing great damage to our country. No, Trump and his lies and crimes and the Republicans that defend Trump, a Soviet-type oligarch president, are doing damage to our country.
Rep. Nunes’ opening statement was a distorted and malicious attack on the House of Representatives carrying out its constitutional duty to protect our democracy from a corrupt and dictatorial president.
He should check the polls: the majority of Americans support the House impeachment inquiry; therefore, he is a traitor in the House.
The Two Witnesses:
I. Bill Taylor, the acting Ambassador to the Ukraine.
II. George Kent, deputy assistant secretary of State for Eastern Europe and the Caucasus.
Both were told by the State Department not to testify, subpoenaed by the House of Representatives, and agreed to testify, sworn in, and gave opening statements.
Mr. Kent said in his opening statement: U.S. military assistance was vital for the survival of Ukraine that is at war with the Russia in Donbas.
It gained independence from Russia in 1991—and is struggling to break free of Russian dominance and move towards Euro-integration. In 2014, Russia annexed Crimea and invaded the eastern Ukraine.
And, he said Russia occupies 7 percent of its territory and more than 13,000 Ukrainians have died on their soil fighting this war. And he says, our help is analogous to France helping the colonies fight the American Revolution.
He, later in the Q&A session, describes it as Russian revanchism and it is in our national interest to provide assistance.
The US, the EU, and other countries are helping the Ukraine to fight the Russian incursion in the form of political, financial, and military assistance.
It gained independence from Russia in 1991—and is struggling to break free of Russian dominance and move towards Euro-integration. In 2014, Russia annexed Crimea and invaded the eastern Ukraine.
And, he said Russia occupies 7 percent of its territory and more than 13,000 Ukrainians have died on their soil fighting this war. And he says, our help is analogous to France helping the colonies fight the American Revolution.
He, later in the Q&A session, describes it as Russian revanchism and it is in our national interest to provide assistance.
The US, the EU, and other countries are helping the Ukraine to fight the Russian incursion in the form of political, financial, and military assistance.
Mr. Taylor said in his opening statement: he thought Trump’s holdback of military assistance until Zelensky opened a corruption investigation into the Bidens/Burisma and Ukraine’s interference in the 2016 election, something for Trump’s political benefit, was crazy and endangered the territorial integrity and sovereignty of the Ukraine and was not part of U.S. official policy, and done through a highly irregular channel of Trump’s team Volker, Perry, Sondland, Mulvaney, and Giuliani. Taylor said, he was in charge of the regular-channel and it became clear to him, the irregular had diverged on a different path.
At one point—Taylor said, he became extremely troubled that US policy had shifted and was considering resigning. And, he called Mr. Morrison, senior director for European affairs at the NSC, and he said, that Trump did not want to give the Ukraine any military assistance.
Trump is now supporting Putin’s position.
One reason for that: Giuliani, his attorney, told him that the Ukraine meddled in the 2016 presidential election—preferring Clinton [over Trump].
Mr. Taylor said, the team President Trump put in place, the irregular-informal channel, was not accountable to Congress.
Furthermore, Taylor said, Sondland, ambassador to the EU, told President Zelensky, that Trump was a business man and before he would sign a check, he wanted the work completed. Trump used the same strategy dealing with Ukraine – do me a favor first, before releasing aid. Taylor, the charge d’affaires of the US Embassy in Ukraine, said, the Ukraine was our strategic partner and the Ukraine owed Trump nothing.
Self-dealing President Trump abused his powers.
At one point—Taylor said, he became extremely troubled that US policy had shifted and was considering resigning. And, he called Mr. Morrison, senior director for European affairs at the NSC, and he said, that Trump did not want to give the Ukraine any military assistance.
Trump is now supporting Putin’s position.
One reason for that: Giuliani, his attorney, told him that the Ukraine meddled in the 2016 presidential election—preferring Clinton [over Trump].
Mr. Taylor said, the team President Trump put in place, the irregular-informal channel, was not accountable to Congress.
Furthermore, Taylor said, Sondland, ambassador to the EU, told President Zelensky, that Trump was a business man and before he would sign a check, he wanted the work completed. Trump used the same strategy dealing with Ukraine – do me a favor first, before releasing aid. Taylor, the charge d’affaires of the US Embassy in Ukraine, said, the Ukraine was our strategic partner and the Ukraine owed Trump nothing.
Self-dealing President Trump abused his powers.
Chairman Adam Schiff begins the questioning of Mr. Kent and Mr. Taylor for 45 minutes.
First, he wanted to follow up on something new that Taylor mentioned in his opening statement and he asked, you said, that one of your staff overheard a July 26th phone call that Sondland made to President Trump at a restaurant in Kiev, is that Correct?
Mr. Taylor said, correct Mr. Chairman.
And, you said, he heard Sondland say to Trump, the Ukrainian leader “loves your ass” and Trump asked, “So he’s going to do it” and Sondland said, “He’s going to do it.” Afterward, Sondland told his staffer Trump “did not give a shit about the Ukraine” he was interested in the “big stuff” – not the war in Donbas, but, the Biden investigation of his political rival.
Mr. Taylor, he did.
Trump was asked about this phone call by a reporter and said, it never happened.
That means he lied.
We will have proof, when that staffer testifies, his name: David Holmes and a second person also overheard the call: Suriya Jayante. And, this was something, Sondland failed to mention in his deposition. He is scheduled for second deposition to clear things up.
And, Chairman Schiff asked, you said, in your testimony more Ukrainians would die without our assistance, why is that?
Mr. Taylor said, that the Ukraine was in a war with the Russia, which had invaded its territory and without the assistance Ukraine would be less able to deter further Russian aggression and negotiate an end to the war in Donbas.
And Chairman Schiff asked, how does this affect our national security?
Mr. Taylor said, Russia violated the territorial integrity of the Ukraine and if we don’t push back, it will continue and that affects our security.
Chairman Schiff said, he now recognizes Mr. Goldman.
First, he wanted to follow up on something new that Taylor mentioned in his opening statement and he asked, you said, that one of your staff overheard a July 26th phone call that Sondland made to President Trump at a restaurant in Kiev, is that Correct?
Mr. Taylor said, correct Mr. Chairman.
And, you said, he heard Sondland say to Trump, the Ukrainian leader “loves your ass” and Trump asked, “So he’s going to do it” and Sondland said, “He’s going to do it.” Afterward, Sondland told his staffer Trump “did not give a shit about the Ukraine” he was interested in the “big stuff” – not the war in Donbas, but, the Biden investigation of his political rival.
Mr. Taylor, he did.
Trump was asked about this phone call by a reporter and said, it never happened.
That means he lied.
We will have proof, when that staffer testifies, his name: David Holmes and a second person also overheard the call: Suriya Jayante. And, this was something, Sondland failed to mention in his deposition. He is scheduled for second deposition to clear things up.
And, Chairman Schiff asked, you said, in your testimony more Ukrainians would die without our assistance, why is that?
Mr. Taylor said, that the Ukraine was in a war with the Russia, which had invaded its territory and without the assistance Ukraine would be less able to deter further Russian aggression and negotiate an end to the war in Donbas.
And Chairman Schiff asked, how does this affect our national security?
Mr. Taylor said, Russia violated the territorial integrity of the Ukraine and if we don’t push back, it will continue and that affects our security.
Chairman Schiff said, he now recognizes Mr. Goldman.
Daniel Goldman, attorney for Democrats, begins to question: Mr. Taylor and Mr. Kent for 45 minutes.
First, he asked Mr. Taylor what he meant; when, he texted Sondland on September 9th, “I think it is crazy to withhold security assistance for help in his political campaign.”
He said, it was illogical and counterproductive to official U.S. and Ukraine’s interests.
And he asked, is that what Trump meant in his July 25th phone call to Zelensky? He said, yes.
And, Goldman asked Mr. Kent, the other witness, what else did Trump withhold? He said a White House meeting.
And he asked, is this part of US foreign policy? And Kent answered, it is not.
Goldman, then, asked about Trump’s phone call, in which, he also wanted an investigation into Ukraine’s interference into the 2016 election; supposedly, hurting Trump and helping Clinton, and to your knowledge was there any factual bases for that allegation?
Mr. Kent answered, to my knowledge, no.
And, Goldman asked, who did interfere? And Kent answered, it was Russia and Goldman followed up with another question: Trump contended, Hunter Biden should be investigation for corruption: Is there any factual bases for that allegation?
Mr. Kent answered, none, whatsoever. And Goldman asked, did Hunter Biden act in accordance with US official policy?
Mr. Kent answered, he did.
And, Goldman asked Kent and Taylor is it your understanding that the visit to the White House was conditioned on Zelensky opening a Biden‑Burisma [corruption] investigation?
Both said, YES.
With that, Goldman yielded by to the Chairman.
And, it this time, he called for a 5 minute recess.
Hearing Resumes:
First, he asked Mr. Taylor what he meant; when, he texted Sondland on September 9th, “I think it is crazy to withhold security assistance for help in his political campaign.”
He said, it was illogical and counterproductive to official U.S. and Ukraine’s interests.
And he asked, is that what Trump meant in his July 25th phone call to Zelensky? He said, yes.
And, Goldman asked Mr. Kent, the other witness, what else did Trump withhold? He said a White House meeting.
And he asked, is this part of US foreign policy? And Kent answered, it is not.
Goldman, then, asked about Trump’s phone call, in which, he also wanted an investigation into Ukraine’s interference into the 2016 election; supposedly, hurting Trump and helping Clinton, and to your knowledge was there any factual bases for that allegation?
Mr. Kent answered, to my knowledge, no.
And, Goldman asked, who did interfere? And Kent answered, it was Russia and Goldman followed up with another question: Trump contended, Hunter Biden should be investigation for corruption: Is there any factual bases for that allegation?
Mr. Kent answered, none, whatsoever. And Goldman asked, did Hunter Biden act in accordance with US official policy?
Mr. Kent answered, he did.
And, Goldman asked Kent and Taylor is it your understanding that the visit to the White House was conditioned on Zelensky opening a Biden‑Burisma [corruption] investigation?
Both said, YES.
With that, Goldman yielded by to the Chairman.
And, it this time, he called for a 5 minute recess.
Hearing Resumes:
Devin Nunes, ranking Republican, begins to question: Mr. Taylor and Mr. Kent for 45 minutes.
He said, the Democrats’ depiction of Trump’s phone call was nefarious and the Trump phone call was an appropriate conversation between two leaders.
That is blatantly false.
Ms. Williams, Lt. Col.Vindman, and Jim Morrison, who were in on the Trump-Zelensky July 25th phone call said, it was inappropriate: both Vindman and Morrison reported it to the NSC. Lt. Col. Vindman feared the president broke the law. When Kurt Volker heard of it, said, no President should ask a foreign leader to interfere in a US election.
Rep. Nunes also said, Democrats claim this call demonstrates extortion, bribery, and a host of other monstrous crimes. He says that is false. No, they are true, these Democratic accusations are based on the all the facts, the Whole Picture—not the one phone call.
And, he makes another false statement: Zelensky, himself said, there was nothing, whatsoever, wrong about the call.
He said there was no coercion in the July 25th Trump phone call, because, he was unaware of the ‘hold’ on military assistance at the time, but, afterwards, when, when, he was informed of Trump’s hold, he became distressed. Mr. Taylor said, that was told to him by Yermak, the top assistant to Zelensky.
When Zelensky was asked at the UN Summit in New York on Sept. 25, did you feel any pressure from President Trump to investigate the Bidens? He said, it was a “normal” phone call and “you read nobody pushed me.” Then, Trump jumped in and said, “no pressure.”
That is the phone call taken literally and as an isolated incident. Reporters did not know enough to ask, was there pressure from Sondland, or Volker to Yermak, his aide, or anybody before and after the July 25th call? Because, at the time these facts were not known.
Zelensky also said at this televised meeting, I don’t want to be involved in US elections; so, he knew what Trump wanted.
So, Rep. Nunes is being deceptive, because, these other facts came out during the House impeachment hearing, which proves Zelensky was pressured, but, not overtly by Trump. It was underground [hidden]….
Carried out by Trump’s surrogates.
Zelensky knew better, than, to bring up these others incidents in front of Trump: that would have been a diplomatic disaster.
It should be noted, the summary of the July 25th phone call was not made public until Sept. 25th--the other related facts still hidden. They were mostly uncovered by House probe in October and November.
In December, 2019, Zelensky admitted to the Time Magazine and the Associated Press he was pressured, so Nunes is wrong.
Nunes also said, since President Trump took office, aid to the Ukraine has improved. That is true, the Ukraine began receiving Javelins, an anti-tank weapon, during the Trump Administration, but, Trump’s freeze on $371 million in military aid, preventing the Ukraine from buying more of them and that freeze, made Ukraine weaker in its war with Russia. So, that argument is moot.
Mr. Taylor said, Tim Morrison, an adviser to President Trump, told him: Trump did not want to give the Ukraine any aid all.
So, there could be more than one reason for the hold—a grudge.
Rep. Nunes says, Trump was willing to send more than blankets, that was the Obama Administration approach: that is also false: Obama also sent 230 armored Humvee vehicles, UAVs, counter-mortar radars, medical supplies, etc.
So, I wish Nunes would stop lying.
Rep. Nunes said, the Democrats said, Trump tried to get the Ukraine to manufacture dirt on the Bidens -- that is backed by zero evidence-- Democrats simple made it up.
That is false: Sondland, told Ukrainian delegates in a White House meeting on July 10, Ukraine needed to investigate the Bidens or Burisma for Zelensky to get a White House meeting.
Then, on July 25th Trump did not use the word manufacture, but, he said in a phone call to Zelensky, The other thing, there's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that, so whatever you can do with the attorney general would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it, it sounds horrible to me.
On the 3rd day of hearing: Chairman Schiff asked Lt. Col. Vindman, “It was pretty clear that the president wanted Zelensky to commit to investigating the Bidens, was it not?”
Vindman answered, That is correct.
More proof, that Trump asked for a Biden-Burisma investigation and a second: 2016 election investigation--ahead.
Rep. Nunes says, if, Ukraine did meddle in US elections, Trump was right to send his attorney to investigate it. He is wrong.
Sondland, Ambassador to the EU, said in his testimony, the men and women of the State Department should take responsibility for Ukraine matters, not Giuliani, Trump’s personal attorney.
Rep. Nunes is not an American patriot; he is a Republican Party and Trump loyalist. He is a diabolical GOP firebrand.
Rep. Nunes should be expelled from the House for his gross distortions: he is a danger to our democracy and nation.
When elected officials take the Oath of Office -- it should be considered the same as swearing in. They should be held to higher standard.
Rep. Nunes was not: he lied profusely.
He said, the President did not ask to dig dirt on anyone. That is false, he did it in his July 25th phone call and mainly through Sondland, his appointed ambassador, and Rudy Giuliani, his personal attorney.
Proof of the second half of that, Giuliani said on CNN, Dec. 17, Trump is “very supportive” of his continued efforts to dig up dirt on Democrats in the Ukraine.
I wish to put that into evidence.
President Trump also asked China to investigate the Bidens and was not for good deeds.
Rep. Nunes said, the Democrats are not trying to discovered facts. That is also a lie: that is the purpose of House impeachment probe. No intelligent person will deny that.
Nunes is not participating in that effort.
He is participating in undermining – it.
Rep. Nunes mentioned certain Ukrainian officials expressed opinions, they preferred Hillary over Trump. And, the reason for that, may have been Trump’s statement in 2016, he might allow Russia to keep Crimea. Mr. Taylor said, that was inflammatory to all Ukrainians. And even, if, there was some isolated, small scale meddling by individuals: that does mean, the Ukrainian government carried out a systematic media campaign to influence the outcome of the 2016 election: it was Russia according to the Muller investigation.
I would like to put into evidence a statement by Dr. Fiona Hill, former White House senior director of Russian and Eurasian affairs, “based on questions and statements I heard some of you on this committee appear to believe that Russia and its security services did not campaign against our country and that perhaps, somehow, for some reason, Ukraine did. This is fictional novelty.”
And she said, “I ask that you please not promote political driven falsehoods that advance Russian interest.”
Rep. Nunes just done that.
He is claiming: Alexandra Chalupa, a contractor for the Democratic National Committee, worked with the Ukrainian officials to collect dirt on the Trump campaign.
Ms. Chalupa, a private US citizen, said in a lengthy statement to CNN. "I was not an opposition researcher for the DNC, and the DNC never asked me to go to the Ukrainian Embassy to collect information."
Ukrainian embassy said in statement, "While some politicians who are not part of the Ukrainian government might have taken sides during last year's election, the government and the Embassy of Ukraine did not.
Nearly, everything Rep. Nunes said was either false, a distortion, or irrelevant.
With that, Rep. Nunes turned to Mr. Castor.
He said, the Democrats’ depiction of Trump’s phone call was nefarious and the Trump phone call was an appropriate conversation between two leaders.
That is blatantly false.
Ms. Williams, Lt. Col.Vindman, and Jim Morrison, who were in on the Trump-Zelensky July 25th phone call said, it was inappropriate: both Vindman and Morrison reported it to the NSC. Lt. Col. Vindman feared the president broke the law. When Kurt Volker heard of it, said, no President should ask a foreign leader to interfere in a US election.
Rep. Nunes also said, Democrats claim this call demonstrates extortion, bribery, and a host of other monstrous crimes. He says that is false. No, they are true, these Democratic accusations are based on the all the facts, the Whole Picture—not the one phone call.
And, he makes another false statement: Zelensky, himself said, there was nothing, whatsoever, wrong about the call.
He said there was no coercion in the July 25th Trump phone call, because, he was unaware of the ‘hold’ on military assistance at the time, but, afterwards, when, when, he was informed of Trump’s hold, he became distressed. Mr. Taylor said, that was told to him by Yermak, the top assistant to Zelensky.
When Zelensky was asked at the UN Summit in New York on Sept. 25, did you feel any pressure from President Trump to investigate the Bidens? He said, it was a “normal” phone call and “you read nobody pushed me.” Then, Trump jumped in and said, “no pressure.”
That is the phone call taken literally and as an isolated incident. Reporters did not know enough to ask, was there pressure from Sondland, or Volker to Yermak, his aide, or anybody before and after the July 25th call? Because, at the time these facts were not known.
Zelensky also said at this televised meeting, I don’t want to be involved in US elections; so, he knew what Trump wanted.
So, Rep. Nunes is being deceptive, because, these other facts came out during the House impeachment hearing, which proves Zelensky was pressured, but, not overtly by Trump. It was underground [hidden]….
Carried out by Trump’s surrogates.
Zelensky knew better, than, to bring up these others incidents in front of Trump: that would have been a diplomatic disaster.
It should be noted, the summary of the July 25th phone call was not made public until Sept. 25th--the other related facts still hidden. They were mostly uncovered by House probe in October and November.
In December, 2019, Zelensky admitted to the Time Magazine and the Associated Press he was pressured, so Nunes is wrong.
Nunes also said, since President Trump took office, aid to the Ukraine has improved. That is true, the Ukraine began receiving Javelins, an anti-tank weapon, during the Trump Administration, but, Trump’s freeze on $371 million in military aid, preventing the Ukraine from buying more of them and that freeze, made Ukraine weaker in its war with Russia. So, that argument is moot.
Mr. Taylor said, Tim Morrison, an adviser to President Trump, told him: Trump did not want to give the Ukraine any aid all.
So, there could be more than one reason for the hold—a grudge.
Rep. Nunes says, Trump was willing to send more than blankets, that was the Obama Administration approach: that is also false: Obama also sent 230 armored Humvee vehicles, UAVs, counter-mortar radars, medical supplies, etc.
So, I wish Nunes would stop lying.
Rep. Nunes said, the Democrats said, Trump tried to get the Ukraine to manufacture dirt on the Bidens -- that is backed by zero evidence-- Democrats simple made it up.
That is false: Sondland, told Ukrainian delegates in a White House meeting on July 10, Ukraine needed to investigate the Bidens or Burisma for Zelensky to get a White House meeting.
Then, on July 25th Trump did not use the word manufacture, but, he said in a phone call to Zelensky, The other thing, there's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that, so whatever you can do with the attorney general would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it, it sounds horrible to me.
On the 3rd day of hearing: Chairman Schiff asked Lt. Col. Vindman, “It was pretty clear that the president wanted Zelensky to commit to investigating the Bidens, was it not?”
Vindman answered, That is correct.
More proof, that Trump asked for a Biden-Burisma investigation and a second: 2016 election investigation--ahead.
Rep. Nunes says, if, Ukraine did meddle in US elections, Trump was right to send his attorney to investigate it. He is wrong.
Sondland, Ambassador to the EU, said in his testimony, the men and women of the State Department should take responsibility for Ukraine matters, not Giuliani, Trump’s personal attorney.
Rep. Nunes is not an American patriot; he is a Republican Party and Trump loyalist. He is a diabolical GOP firebrand.
Rep. Nunes should be expelled from the House for his gross distortions: he is a danger to our democracy and nation.
When elected officials take the Oath of Office -- it should be considered the same as swearing in. They should be held to higher standard.
Rep. Nunes was not: he lied profusely.
He said, the President did not ask to dig dirt on anyone. That is false, he did it in his July 25th phone call and mainly through Sondland, his appointed ambassador, and Rudy Giuliani, his personal attorney.
Proof of the second half of that, Giuliani said on CNN, Dec. 17, Trump is “very supportive” of his continued efforts to dig up dirt on Democrats in the Ukraine.
I wish to put that into evidence.
President Trump also asked China to investigate the Bidens and was not for good deeds.
Rep. Nunes said, the Democrats are not trying to discovered facts. That is also a lie: that is the purpose of House impeachment probe. No intelligent person will deny that.
Nunes is not participating in that effort.
He is participating in undermining – it.
Rep. Nunes mentioned certain Ukrainian officials expressed opinions, they preferred Hillary over Trump. And, the reason for that, may have been Trump’s statement in 2016, he might allow Russia to keep Crimea. Mr. Taylor said, that was inflammatory to all Ukrainians. And even, if, there was some isolated, small scale meddling by individuals: that does mean, the Ukrainian government carried out a systematic media campaign to influence the outcome of the 2016 election: it was Russia according to the Muller investigation.
I would like to put into evidence a statement by Dr. Fiona Hill, former White House senior director of Russian and Eurasian affairs, “based on questions and statements I heard some of you on this committee appear to believe that Russia and its security services did not campaign against our country and that perhaps, somehow, for some reason, Ukraine did. This is fictional novelty.”
And she said, “I ask that you please not promote political driven falsehoods that advance Russian interest.”
Rep. Nunes just done that.
He is claiming: Alexandra Chalupa, a contractor for the Democratic National Committee, worked with the Ukrainian officials to collect dirt on the Trump campaign.
Ms. Chalupa, a private US citizen, said in a lengthy statement to CNN. "I was not an opposition researcher for the DNC, and the DNC never asked me to go to the Ukrainian Embassy to collect information."
Ukrainian embassy said in statement, "While some politicians who are not part of the Ukrainian government might have taken sides during last year's election, the government and the Embassy of Ukraine did not.
Nearly, everything Rep. Nunes said was either false, a distortion, or irrelevant.
With that, Rep. Nunes turned to Mr. Castor.
Steve Castor, the attorney for the Republicans, begins to question Mr. Kent and Mr. Taylor for 45 minutes.
He asks, is it true, because, Ukrainians; namely, the former Ambassador to the U.S. under President Poroshenko, the former Prime Minister, Vatsenyuk, and Interior Minister, Avakov, said unkind things about the president that was reason for Trump to ask for an investigation in the 2016 election?
Chairman Schiff interrupted, saying, I will allow the question, but, warned the two witnesses, Mr. Kent and Mr. Taylor, not to assume these things mentioned by Caster are factual. These things were not included in the House disposition testimonies.
Rep. Radcliffe interrupted and said, he heard Goldman, attorney for the Democrats, ask a lot of questions about things not put into evidence. I disagree, it was based on all, or nearly all, House testimonies and the phone transcript.
Schiff replied, as I said, I will allow the question.
Castor said, so you can appreciate the president’s concerns? Taylor answered, Mr. Castor, I don’t know the exact nature of President Trump’s concerns. I am aware of the things you told me, I don’t know what was Trump’s reaction to those opinions.
He asked another question about the ‘black ledger’ published in August of 2016 and Taylor answered, I don’t know.
I do!
It reveals Manafort, Trump’s campaign manager, received millions of dollars in off-the-books payments for consulting work for Viktor Yanukovych, Ukraine’s pro-Russian former President. He fled to Russia during the Ukrainian Revolution in 2014.
That revelation forced Manafort to resign as Trump’s campaign manager. He is now in prison for tax and bank fraud.
These off-the-books payment contained in the ‘black ledger’ and published by Sergey Leshchenko, a Ukrainian journalist, led to Manafort’s conviction.
Castor said, it was very reasonable for Trump to believe, because of the ‘black ledger’ release, elements of Ukrainian of the establishment were out to get him, correct?
Mr. Taylor, I don’t know.
I do!
The purpose of the release of the black ledger was to help root out corruption in the Ukraine and not to meddle in the 2016 U.S. election.
Castor asked, the President has expressed, you know, in certain investigations, related to the 2016 election and related to this corrupt Burisma outfit, so that wasn’t inconsistent with the President’s message, right?
And, he did not get the answer he wanted. Mr. Taylor said, the President’s interest was represented by his attorney, Giuliani.
Castor tried to make the argument; because, corruption was endemic in the Ukraine, the thief of billions of dollars of state assets, Trump was justified in requesting an investigation into the Bidens and Burisma, but, it was not the same—to root out corruption--it was to be used to put the cloud of a corruption investigation over the head of his political opponent in the 2020, even if no evidence was found.
This is commonly used weapon against political rivals. According to Axios and Politico, Trump feared ex-VP Biden, because, a poll showed him beating Trump.
When Joe Biden decided to run for office, that is when, Trump’s attorney, Giuliani began his dirt concocting mission.
Trump will do whatever it takes to win: he broke the campaign finance law and asked for Russian help to win in 2016 and he attempted to bribe a foreign leader to win in 2020 –and got caught.
Graft is engrained in his nature.
He even cheats at playing golf.
Castor wasted a lot of time asking questions that were irrelevant and questions that Taylor and Kent could not answer (i.e., off-target).
He failed to make a single valid point in the defense of President Trump, who tried to coerce a foreign leader to do him a favor in exchange for US military aid and a White House visit.
Those facts are in disputable.
Chairman Schiff, the Gentleman’s time has expired.
Next, Chairman Schiff announced the beginning of the 5-minute rounds, where House Intelligence Committee members: Democrats and Republicans would each question Mr. Kent and Mr. Taylor.
He asks, is it true, because, Ukrainians; namely, the former Ambassador to the U.S. under President Poroshenko, the former Prime Minister, Vatsenyuk, and Interior Minister, Avakov, said unkind things about the president that was reason for Trump to ask for an investigation in the 2016 election?
Chairman Schiff interrupted, saying, I will allow the question, but, warned the two witnesses, Mr. Kent and Mr. Taylor, not to assume these things mentioned by Caster are factual. These things were not included in the House disposition testimonies.
Rep. Radcliffe interrupted and said, he heard Goldman, attorney for the Democrats, ask a lot of questions about things not put into evidence. I disagree, it was based on all, or nearly all, House testimonies and the phone transcript.
Schiff replied, as I said, I will allow the question.
Castor said, so you can appreciate the president’s concerns? Taylor answered, Mr. Castor, I don’t know the exact nature of President Trump’s concerns. I am aware of the things you told me, I don’t know what was Trump’s reaction to those opinions.
He asked another question about the ‘black ledger’ published in August of 2016 and Taylor answered, I don’t know.
I do!
It reveals Manafort, Trump’s campaign manager, received millions of dollars in off-the-books payments for consulting work for Viktor Yanukovych, Ukraine’s pro-Russian former President. He fled to Russia during the Ukrainian Revolution in 2014.
That revelation forced Manafort to resign as Trump’s campaign manager. He is now in prison for tax and bank fraud.
These off-the-books payment contained in the ‘black ledger’ and published by Sergey Leshchenko, a Ukrainian journalist, led to Manafort’s conviction.
Castor said, it was very reasonable for Trump to believe, because of the ‘black ledger’ release, elements of Ukrainian of the establishment were out to get him, correct?
Mr. Taylor, I don’t know.
I do!
The purpose of the release of the black ledger was to help root out corruption in the Ukraine and not to meddle in the 2016 U.S. election.
Castor asked, the President has expressed, you know, in certain investigations, related to the 2016 election and related to this corrupt Burisma outfit, so that wasn’t inconsistent with the President’s message, right?
And, he did not get the answer he wanted. Mr. Taylor said, the President’s interest was represented by his attorney, Giuliani.
Castor tried to make the argument; because, corruption was endemic in the Ukraine, the thief of billions of dollars of state assets, Trump was justified in requesting an investigation into the Bidens and Burisma, but, it was not the same—to root out corruption--it was to be used to put the cloud of a corruption investigation over the head of his political opponent in the 2020, even if no evidence was found.
This is commonly used weapon against political rivals. According to Axios and Politico, Trump feared ex-VP Biden, because, a poll showed him beating Trump.
When Joe Biden decided to run for office, that is when, Trump’s attorney, Giuliani began his dirt concocting mission.
Trump will do whatever it takes to win: he broke the campaign finance law and asked for Russian help to win in 2016 and he attempted to bribe a foreign leader to win in 2020 –and got caught.
Graft is engrained in his nature.
He even cheats at playing golf.
Castor wasted a lot of time asking questions that were irrelevant and questions that Taylor and Kent could not answer (i.e., off-target).
He failed to make a single valid point in the defense of President Trump, who tried to coerce a foreign leader to do him a favor in exchange for US military aid and a White House visit.
Those facts are in disputable.
Chairman Schiff, the Gentleman’s time has expired.
Next, Chairman Schiff announced the beginning of the 5-minute rounds, where House Intelligence Committee members: Democrats and Republicans would each question Mr. Kent and Mr. Taylor.
Chairman Schiff asked, Trump’s request for an investigation was not about the money laundering that took place in Burisma in 2010 to 2012, before Zelensky became president, that Castor, lawyer for the Republicans, was asking the two witnesses about – that had nothing to do with Hunter Biden who became a board member of Burisma in 2014, right?
Mr. Taylor said, that is my understanding.
And, he asked Taylor about a call between Sondland and Trump: did Trump mention anything about these people that Castor mention (i.e., involved in self-dealing)?
Mr. Taylor said, no, he was more interested in a Hunter Biden [corruption] investigation, than, investigating corruption in the Ukraine.
Schiff asked Taylor, isn’t true; Trump tried to put Zelensky in a public box; that is, without the announcement there would be no aid or visit?
And Taylor answered, that’s the implication, it had to be public as opposed to a private [corruption] investigation.
Chairman Schiff asked, you said, you ask Sondland to push back (i.e., on the President’s demand for public announcement, by Zelensky, himself): isn’t that right?
Mr. Taylor answered, that is right sir. And, he said, since Sondland directly communicated with Trump, he could make that point -- that it was not a good idea. And, he said, I also made it known to Zelensky, by discussing it with his staff, that it was a bad idea for him to make this public announcement of the Biden‑Burisma investigation on CNN.
Chairman Schiff said, as a matter of fact, Zelensky felt compelled to make the announcement to secure the desired White House meeting with Trump, but, after he learnt the type of announcement that Trump wanted, Danylyuk, the national security adviser to President Zelensky, told you, he, actually, did not want to be used as tool in American politics? Isn’t that right?
Mr. Taylor said, that is right.
Chairman Schiff recognizes Nunes.
Mr. Taylor said, that is my understanding.
And, he asked Taylor about a call between Sondland and Trump: did Trump mention anything about these people that Castor mention (i.e., involved in self-dealing)?
Mr. Taylor said, no, he was more interested in a Hunter Biden [corruption] investigation, than, investigating corruption in the Ukraine.
Schiff asked Taylor, isn’t true; Trump tried to put Zelensky in a public box; that is, without the announcement there would be no aid or visit?
And Taylor answered, that’s the implication, it had to be public as opposed to a private [corruption] investigation.
Chairman Schiff asked, you said, you ask Sondland to push back (i.e., on the President’s demand for public announcement, by Zelensky, himself): isn’t that right?
Mr. Taylor answered, that is right sir. And, he said, since Sondland directly communicated with Trump, he could make that point -- that it was not a good idea. And, he said, I also made it known to Zelensky, by discussing it with his staff, that it was a bad idea for him to make this public announcement of the Biden‑Burisma investigation on CNN.
Chairman Schiff said, as a matter of fact, Zelensky felt compelled to make the announcement to secure the desired White House meeting with Trump, but, after he learnt the type of announcement that Trump wanted, Danylyuk, the national security adviser to President Zelensky, told you, he, actually, did not want to be used as tool in American politics? Isn’t that right?
Mr. Taylor said, that is right.
Chairman Schiff recognizes Nunes.
Rep. Nunes (R-CA) makes a short statement and yielded to Jordan, the go-to GOP attack dog. He asked Mr. Taylor you had three meetings with Zelensky and there was no mention of any linkage to military aid to what Trump wanted: isn’t that true?
He said, yes.
And, Jordan asked, where did you get this clear understanding military assistance would be withheld until the public announcement. How could that be true, since, the military aid was released and Zelensky never made the public announcement?
Mr. Taylor said, my clear understand comes from people I talked to and this statement by Sondland, who modified his first statement: there was no quid pro quo and his second statement agrees with the way I understand it: there; definitely, was. That is true. Gordon Sondland in his second disposition, when asked, was there quid pro quo, he said, yes.
David Holmes, a State Department official stationed at the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine, also had this “clear” impression that security assistance was connected to the investigations and he got that from listening to Sondland speaking with Trump.
And, Taylor said, Sondland told him what Trump said.
And, Jim Morrison told Taylor the same thing.
Rep. Jim Jordan is not listening to the evidence. Why does he think he knows better, living in Utah, than, these career diplomats in the Ukraine.
Taylor is in constant talks with Ukrainians officials.
George Kent also has the same clear understanding.
Rep. Jordan grins at the end of his spiel—thinks he succeeded in damaging Ambassador Taylor’s credibility: he is badly mistaken, he misanalysed the facts.
Rep. Jordan mistake is coming to a conclusion based on incomplete information: he left out important pieces of the puzzle.
This only day 1 of the public hearing.
He basing his conclusion on three Ambassador Bill Taylor meetings with Zelensky, however, he was working on the official US channel.
He targeted the wrong man.
President Trump carried out his bribery-extortion scheme by his team working on the irregular channel. He rerouted the EU Amabbassor, Sondland, to the Ukraine and he informed President Zelensky what Trump demanded to get the WH meeting and release of the security assistance. And, he told Taylor and Morrison about it. And that is where Taylor, acting Ambassador to the Ukraine, got his clear understanding.
Sondland’s testimony occurs on day 4.
The Chairman said Jordan’s time was up!
He said, yes.
And, Jordan asked, where did you get this clear understanding military assistance would be withheld until the public announcement. How could that be true, since, the military aid was released and Zelensky never made the public announcement?
Mr. Taylor said, my clear understand comes from people I talked to and this statement by Sondland, who modified his first statement: there was no quid pro quo and his second statement agrees with the way I understand it: there; definitely, was. That is true. Gordon Sondland in his second disposition, when asked, was there quid pro quo, he said, yes.
David Holmes, a State Department official stationed at the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine, also had this “clear” impression that security assistance was connected to the investigations and he got that from listening to Sondland speaking with Trump.
And, Taylor said, Sondland told him what Trump said.
And, Jim Morrison told Taylor the same thing.
Rep. Jim Jordan is not listening to the evidence. Why does he think he knows better, living in Utah, than, these career diplomats in the Ukraine.
Taylor is in constant talks with Ukrainians officials.
George Kent also has the same clear understanding.
Rep. Jordan grins at the end of his spiel—thinks he succeeded in damaging Ambassador Taylor’s credibility: he is badly mistaken, he misanalysed the facts.
Rep. Jordan mistake is coming to a conclusion based on incomplete information: he left out important pieces of the puzzle.
This only day 1 of the public hearing.
He basing his conclusion on three Ambassador Bill Taylor meetings with Zelensky, however, he was working on the official US channel.
He targeted the wrong man.
President Trump carried out his bribery-extortion scheme by his team working on the irregular channel. He rerouted the EU Amabbassor, Sondland, to the Ukraine and he informed President Zelensky what Trump demanded to get the WH meeting and release of the security assistance. And, he told Taylor and Morrison about it. And that is where Taylor, acting Ambassador to the Ukraine, got his clear understanding.
Sondland’s testimony occurs on day 4.
The Chairman said Jordan’s time was up!
And, he gave 5 minutes to Jim Himes (D-CT): he criticized the Republicans for making sham arguments.
That is the way I see it.
And, he asked Mr. Kent, who has specialized in anti-corruption issues, do you think, based on Trump’s phone call, Trump was requesting a thoughtful and well calibrated anti-corruption program?
Mr. Kent answered, I do not.
And, Rep. Himes ask, Mr. Kent and Mr. Taylor: do you think, that President Trump’s request for a corruption investigation into Hunter Biden and Vice President Joe Biden’s threat to withhold a $1 billion loan guarantee, if, Ukraine did not fire Viktor Shokin, the prosecutor general, as Republicans argue and Sen. Rand Paul (R‑Ky) said, are the same thing?
Mr. Kent answered, I do not think they are the same things.
What VP Biden did was US official policy and there was domestic and international support for the removal of Shokin for failure to prosecute corrupt Ukrainian oligarchs.
That was not true—what Trump did.
Rep. Himes asks do you think that President Trump request for an investigation in Hunter Biden was to weed out corruption in the Ukraine.
Mr. Kent answer, I would not say so, no sir.
Rep. Himes concluded, I don’t think President Trump was trying to end corruption in Ukraine, I think he was trying to aim corruption in Ukraine at Vice President Biden and at the 2020 election.
And, Himes yielded back the balance of his time.
That is the way I see it.
And, he asked Mr. Kent, who has specialized in anti-corruption issues, do you think, based on Trump’s phone call, Trump was requesting a thoughtful and well calibrated anti-corruption program?
Mr. Kent answered, I do not.
And, Rep. Himes ask, Mr. Kent and Mr. Taylor: do you think, that President Trump’s request for a corruption investigation into Hunter Biden and Vice President Joe Biden’s threat to withhold a $1 billion loan guarantee, if, Ukraine did not fire Viktor Shokin, the prosecutor general, as Republicans argue and Sen. Rand Paul (R‑Ky) said, are the same thing?
Mr. Kent answered, I do not think they are the same things.
What VP Biden did was US official policy and there was domestic and international support for the removal of Shokin for failure to prosecute corrupt Ukrainian oligarchs.
That was not true—what Trump did.
Rep. Himes asks do you think that President Trump request for an investigation in Hunter Biden was to weed out corruption in the Ukraine.
Mr. Kent answer, I would not say so, no sir.
Rep. Himes concluded, I don’t think President Trump was trying to end corruption in Ukraine, I think he was trying to aim corruption in Ukraine at Vice President Biden and at the 2020 election.
And, Himes yielded back the balance of his time.
Chairman, Mr. Conaway (R-TX) is recognized for 5 minutes and he yielded his time to Mr. Ratcliffe (R-Texas).
Rep. Ratciffe asked in your dealings with Zelensky, is there any question about his integrity?
Mr. Taylor, no sir.
And, Ratcliffe said, based on your prior statement, according to law, if, nobody in Ukraine knew about the hold on military assistance, there can be no quid pro quo [crime of bribery]. Is that correct?
Mr. Taylor, that is correct in July—not in September.
And, Ratcliffe said, Zelensky agreed with you, held a Press Conference in Warsaw on August 10, 2019 and admitted, in the July 25th phone, there was no pressure—no threat to withhold military aid, no blackmail. And, Ratciffe asked, where is there an impeachable offense in that call?
Mr. Taylor answered please let me respond: I am not here to decide what is an impeachable offense. That is your job.
Rep. Ratcliffe asked, do you have any evidence to suggest, that President Zelensky lied, when he said those things: no threats, no conditions, or blackmail -- yes or no?
Taylor tried to explain, more fully, and Ratcliffe stop him, saying, my time is short, yes or no.?
Taylor, I have no reason to disbelieve.
Rep. Ratcliffe then said, Democrats are here to impeach the president: Are either of you here today to assert, there was an impeachable offense in that call.... shout it out anyone?
Mr. Taylor said, if I can just respond, if, I can reiterate that I’m not here…. Ratcliffe interrupted, I got one-minute left, then, a tussle ensued: Taylor wanted to explain -- Ratcliffe tried to stop him, wasting time, and he asked the Chairman to restore 1 minute on the clock. He said no.
Schiff asked if, Taylor wanted to reply and he said, neither of us is here to decide what is impeachable.
Again, Rep. Ratcliffe asked the Chairman for one minute --and the Chairman gave him 22 seconds.
Here is what he said, if, Democrats want to impeach the President, they are going to have to call President Zelensky a liar.
And, Ratcliffe yielded back.
----------
Mr. Taylor did not get a chance to rebuff that, so, I will. Ratcliffe is claiming; because, Zelensky at Kiev, Oct. 10, admitted there was no threat of a military aid freeze in the July 25th phone call with Trump; therefore, there was no bribery or extortion. The reason he said that, because, at the time of the call he was not aware of the hold, he did not find out until later. His answer was restricted to the call: he did not say, there was no pressure exerted at other times or places. Rep. Ratcliffe must have been sleeping during Chairman Schiff’s opening statement, he said, Ambassador Sondland said, in a sworn statement, that at a September 1 meeting in Warsaw, he told Ukrainian officials -- military assistance would not be restored unless Ukraine provided the anti-corruption statement that Trump requested.
Mr. Taylor also mentioned, Morrison called him on September 2 and said, Danylyuk, senior adviser to Zelensky, called him and asked him to come to his hotel room in Warsaw and there, he expressed that Zelensky was concerned of the possibility of losing the US aid. So, Rep. Ratcliffe is not listening to, ignoring, or disbelieving the testimony of these two top US diplomats: Sondland and Taylor. True, there was no overt threat in Trump-Zelensky July 25th call, but there was at other times and places. Ratcliffe is ignoring those facts.
Rep. Ratciffe asked in your dealings with Zelensky, is there any question about his integrity?
Mr. Taylor, no sir.
And, Ratcliffe said, based on your prior statement, according to law, if, nobody in Ukraine knew about the hold on military assistance, there can be no quid pro quo [crime of bribery]. Is that correct?
Mr. Taylor, that is correct in July—not in September.
And, Ratcliffe said, Zelensky agreed with you, held a Press Conference in Warsaw on August 10, 2019 and admitted, in the July 25th phone, there was no pressure—no threat to withhold military aid, no blackmail. And, Ratciffe asked, where is there an impeachable offense in that call?
Mr. Taylor answered please let me respond: I am not here to decide what is an impeachable offense. That is your job.
Rep. Ratcliffe asked, do you have any evidence to suggest, that President Zelensky lied, when he said those things: no threats, no conditions, or blackmail -- yes or no?
Taylor tried to explain, more fully, and Ratcliffe stop him, saying, my time is short, yes or no.?
Taylor, I have no reason to disbelieve.
Rep. Ratcliffe then said, Democrats are here to impeach the president: Are either of you here today to assert, there was an impeachable offense in that call.... shout it out anyone?
Mr. Taylor said, if I can just respond, if, I can reiterate that I’m not here…. Ratcliffe interrupted, I got one-minute left, then, a tussle ensued: Taylor wanted to explain -- Ratcliffe tried to stop him, wasting time, and he asked the Chairman to restore 1 minute on the clock. He said no.
Schiff asked if, Taylor wanted to reply and he said, neither of us is here to decide what is impeachable.
Again, Rep. Ratcliffe asked the Chairman for one minute --and the Chairman gave him 22 seconds.
Here is what he said, if, Democrats want to impeach the President, they are going to have to call President Zelensky a liar.
And, Ratcliffe yielded back.
----------
Mr. Taylor did not get a chance to rebuff that, so, I will. Ratcliffe is claiming; because, Zelensky at Kiev, Oct. 10, admitted there was no threat of a military aid freeze in the July 25th phone call with Trump; therefore, there was no bribery or extortion. The reason he said that, because, at the time of the call he was not aware of the hold, he did not find out until later. His answer was restricted to the call: he did not say, there was no pressure exerted at other times or places. Rep. Ratcliffe must have been sleeping during Chairman Schiff’s opening statement, he said, Ambassador Sondland said, in a sworn statement, that at a September 1 meeting in Warsaw, he told Ukrainian officials -- military assistance would not be restored unless Ukraine provided the anti-corruption statement that Trump requested.
Mr. Taylor also mentioned, Morrison called him on September 2 and said, Danylyuk, senior adviser to Zelensky, called him and asked him to come to his hotel room in Warsaw and there, he expressed that Zelensky was concerned of the possibility of losing the US aid. So, Rep. Ratcliffe is not listening to, ignoring, or disbelieving the testimony of these two top US diplomats: Sondland and Taylor. True, there was no overt threat in Trump-Zelensky July 25th call, but there was at other times and places. Ratcliffe is ignoring those facts.
Chairman Schiff recognizes for 5 minutes: Ms. Sewell (D-AL), she yielded a few minutes to the Chairman.
Schiff asked Taylor, did the Ukrainians find out Trump froze the military aid in a news article published in Politico?
Mr. Taylor answer, yes, about September 1.
And Schiff asked, the Ukrainians found out that Trump wanted a public announcement; first, before he would release the security assistance, didn’t they?
Mr. Taylor, they found out what was required when Sondland spoke to Yermak, adviser to Zelensky, yes.
Down goes to defeat: Rep. Radcliffe’s argument, that President Zelensky never knew about the hold and there was no threat or coercion.
Chairman returns time to Representative Sewell:
She asked Mr. Kent, what did you mean by the term “three amigos”?
Mr. Kent said, when Sondland used that term: he meant: himself, Volker, and Perry who had charge of Ukrainian policy. And she asked, when did you learn about Giuliani’s role?
Mr. Kent answered, he learned about Giuliani in January.
Rep. Sewell asked, is it normal for a private citizen to play an active role in diplomacy?
Mr. Kent, I did not find his engagement—normal.
Rep. Sewell asked, Mr. Taylor, you said there are two channels: regular and irregular: what role did Giuliani play in Ukraine policy?
Mr. Taylor, I came to find out, Mr. Giuliani, had a large influence on the irregular channel.
Rep. Sewell, is that normal for a private citizen to play an active role in US diplomacy?
Mr. Taylor, it not unusual for private citizens to give opinions to help form US policies, it is unusual for one to act contrary to US policy.
Rep. Sewell, I yield back.
Schiff asked Taylor, did the Ukrainians find out Trump froze the military aid in a news article published in Politico?
Mr. Taylor answer, yes, about September 1.
And Schiff asked, the Ukrainians found out that Trump wanted a public announcement; first, before he would release the security assistance, didn’t they?
Mr. Taylor, they found out what was required when Sondland spoke to Yermak, adviser to Zelensky, yes.
Down goes to defeat: Rep. Radcliffe’s argument, that President Zelensky never knew about the hold and there was no threat or coercion.
Chairman returns time to Representative Sewell:
She asked Mr. Kent, what did you mean by the term “three amigos”?
Mr. Kent said, when Sondland used that term: he meant: himself, Volker, and Perry who had charge of Ukrainian policy. And she asked, when did you learn about Giuliani’s role?
Mr. Kent answered, he learned about Giuliani in January.
Rep. Sewell asked, is it normal for a private citizen to play an active role in diplomacy?
Mr. Kent, I did not find his engagement—normal.
Rep. Sewell asked, Mr. Taylor, you said there are two channels: regular and irregular: what role did Giuliani play in Ukraine policy?
Mr. Taylor, I came to find out, Mr. Giuliani, had a large influence on the irregular channel.
Rep. Sewell, is that normal for a private citizen to play an active role in US diplomacy?
Mr. Taylor, it not unusual for private citizens to give opinions to help form US policies, it is unusual for one to act contrary to US policy.
Rep. Sewell, I yield back.
Mr. Turner (R-OH), you are recognized for 5 minutes: He asked, have you had any contact with the President?
Mr. Taylor and Mr. Kent said—no.
Rep. Turner concluded, since, this impeachment is about the president, their testimony was hearsay.
And, he says, the Sixth Amendment does not allow hearsay as evidence in a court proceeding; because frequently, it is unreliable and untruthful.
Rep. Turner asks Mr. Taylor have ever found out that what somebody told you in meeting or conversation was wrong?
Mr. Taylor responded, he testified to what he knows.
Rep. Turner is trying to discredit the two witnesses.
He does not know what he is talking about; because, the Sixth Amendment says nothing about hearsay. The Federal Rules of Evidence defines hearsay: something a person told you.
There are three elements of legal evidence:
1. The person speaking is under oath
2. And, subject to cross examination
Mr. Taylor and Mr. Kent meet both of those elements: what was missing the third element: in court, the person that told you something must be present, and there are about 30 exemptions.
What Taylor and Kent heard from other, I am sure, was evaluated by what they already knew, who said it, and what happens.
Mr. Kent said, at the beginning: he was a fact-witness: that is something he knows to be true.
And, Mr. Taylor said, I am here to tell the truth.
And, what the House impeachment probe tries to do, is verify what a person said, he heard from another person, by asking that person. That is part of House disposition testimonies. There is an exception, Trump’s men who refuse to testify.
So, what the Republicans are trying to do is undermine this evidence, by calling it hearsay or second and third hand information.
. And, it is not true—all hearsay is unreliable.
It depends, a lot, on who said it.
For Rep. Turner and other Republicans on the panel who attempt to destroy the credibility of the testimony of Kent and Taylor, two career diplomats, by calling it hearsay, to defend President Trump, the most egregious liar in US history, is irrational and harmful.
Republicans, so far, have failed to point out one thing, these two men said, that is false.
Whereas, Trump has made 45 false statements about the impeachment and Ukraine, as of 11/16/19, according CNN.
That means: Trump is suffering from some type of mental disorder. This is not normal for a U.S. President to express that degree of mendacity and that degree of rancor -- to call Democrats “human scum.”
His bizarre, rambling, speech [troublesome]
His invectives are irrational.
He has a bad or vile character.
Trump wanting to investigate Hunter Biden for corruption—and blocking the House investigation of his corruption—shows he is not fair-minded.
And, that is true of Republicans on the dais.
Rep. Turner yields the rest of his time to Jordan, the go-to GOP attack dog. He asks Mr. Taylor were you wrong, when you said, you had a clear understand that Zelensky had to commit to an investigation of the Bidens before the aid got released?
Taylor answered, I was not wrong about what I told you. I told you what I heard.
Jordan argues, since, the aid got released without Zelensky starting an investigation, what you heard is wrong.
No, Jordan’s reasoning is wrong!
Let me explain that, the Trump bribery scheme fell apart when members of Congress discovered and determined Trump’s hold on military aid was illegal and he was told to release it, or else. He, then, released it to extricate himself from the serious legal troubles he was in. He got caught committing a high crime.
Therefore, Zelensky’s announcement on CNN was canceled
Rep. Jim Jordan’s time expires.
Mr. Taylor and Mr. Kent said—no.
Rep. Turner concluded, since, this impeachment is about the president, their testimony was hearsay.
And, he says, the Sixth Amendment does not allow hearsay as evidence in a court proceeding; because frequently, it is unreliable and untruthful.
Rep. Turner asks Mr. Taylor have ever found out that what somebody told you in meeting or conversation was wrong?
Mr. Taylor responded, he testified to what he knows.
Rep. Turner is trying to discredit the two witnesses.
He does not know what he is talking about; because, the Sixth Amendment says nothing about hearsay. The Federal Rules of Evidence defines hearsay: something a person told you.
There are three elements of legal evidence:
1. The person speaking is under oath
2. And, subject to cross examination
Mr. Taylor and Mr. Kent meet both of those elements: what was missing the third element: in court, the person that told you something must be present, and there are about 30 exemptions.
What Taylor and Kent heard from other, I am sure, was evaluated by what they already knew, who said it, and what happens.
Mr. Kent said, at the beginning: he was a fact-witness: that is something he knows to be true.
And, Mr. Taylor said, I am here to tell the truth.
And, what the House impeachment probe tries to do, is verify what a person said, he heard from another person, by asking that person. That is part of House disposition testimonies. There is an exception, Trump’s men who refuse to testify.
So, what the Republicans are trying to do is undermine this evidence, by calling it hearsay or second and third hand information.
. And, it is not true—all hearsay is unreliable.
It depends, a lot, on who said it.
For Rep. Turner and other Republicans on the panel who attempt to destroy the credibility of the testimony of Kent and Taylor, two career diplomats, by calling it hearsay, to defend President Trump, the most egregious liar in US history, is irrational and harmful.
Republicans, so far, have failed to point out one thing, these two men said, that is false.
Whereas, Trump has made 45 false statements about the impeachment and Ukraine, as of 11/16/19, according CNN.
That means: Trump is suffering from some type of mental disorder. This is not normal for a U.S. President to express that degree of mendacity and that degree of rancor -- to call Democrats “human scum.”
His bizarre, rambling, speech [troublesome]
His invectives are irrational.
He has a bad or vile character.
Trump wanting to investigate Hunter Biden for corruption—and blocking the House investigation of his corruption—shows he is not fair-minded.
And, that is true of Republicans on the dais.
Rep. Turner yields the rest of his time to Jordan, the go-to GOP attack dog. He asks Mr. Taylor were you wrong, when you said, you had a clear understand that Zelensky had to commit to an investigation of the Bidens before the aid got released?
Taylor answered, I was not wrong about what I told you. I told you what I heard.
Jordan argues, since, the aid got released without Zelensky starting an investigation, what you heard is wrong.
No, Jordan’s reasoning is wrong!
Let me explain that, the Trump bribery scheme fell apart when members of Congress discovered and determined Trump’s hold on military aid was illegal and he was told to release it, or else. He, then, released it to extricate himself from the serious legal troubles he was in. He got caught committing a high crime.
Therefore, Zelensky’s announcement on CNN was canceled
Rep. Jim Jordan’s time expires.
Chairman said, now I recognizes Mr. Carson (D-IN) for 5 minutes: he yields to the Chairman:
Schiff said, he wanted to make a clarification and directed his question to Mr. Kent and said, you would agree, if, president Zelensky had contradicted President Trump and said, he was pressured, they were sophisticated enough to know, the Ukraine might pay a very heavy price, were they not?
Mr. Kent, that is a fair assessment.
Schiff yielded back to Mr. Carson.
Rep. Carson spent much his time asking about the removal of the Ambassador to the Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch. There is no doubt she was a sterling diplomat with years of experience and she was subject to a smear campaign by Trump’s lawyer, Rudy Giuliani and her removal from office by Trump was a misuse of executive power. He said, she would not hang his picture, but what that means: she was not willing to join his bribery scheme. She has testified in a separate public hearing, so, I am going to skip over this matter—here.
Schiff said, he wanted to make a clarification and directed his question to Mr. Kent and said, you would agree, if, president Zelensky had contradicted President Trump and said, he was pressured, they were sophisticated enough to know, the Ukraine might pay a very heavy price, were they not?
Mr. Kent, that is a fair assessment.
Schiff yielded back to Mr. Carson.
Rep. Carson spent much his time asking about the removal of the Ambassador to the Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch. There is no doubt she was a sterling diplomat with years of experience and she was subject to a smear campaign by Trump’s lawyer, Rudy Giuliani and her removal from office by Trump was a misuse of executive power. He said, she would not hang his picture, but what that means: she was not willing to join his bribery scheme. She has testified in a separate public hearing, so, I am going to skip over this matter—here.
Dr. Wenstrup (R-OH) made the statement that Obama did not provide Ukraine with lethal weapons—Trump did.
Mr. Taylor agreed.
I get the point, however, the hold that President Trump put on military aid, meant, the Ukraine would be weaker militarily.
Rep. Wenstrup failed to mention the ‘hold’ was not in the best interest of Ukraine, fighting Russian aggression in eastern Ukraine; therefore, his statement defending Trump is unsound.
The fact that Trump provided the Ukraine with Javelins and Obama did not; in no way, exculpates him from the crime of bribery.
Trump freezing the military aid, unless you make an announcement as I requested, to damage the reputation of my political rival, to help me be reelected in the 2020—and hiding that phone call and blocking the House investigation: that is commission of a series of crimes.
Rep. Wenstrup said, I would like to yield the rest of my time to Mr. Ratcliffe: he accuses Chairman Schiff of lying -- by claiming: Trump pressured Zelensky to do something to get aid – and, he said, what did he do? He did nothing and the aid was released. This is a phony argument, because, when Trump’s bribery scheme was discovered, the military aid was released without Zelensky making a public announcement. It was members of Congress and senior officials in OMB, NSC, and DOD who were outraged and advised it be released. Trump was opposed to releasing the aid until he got caught in a bribery-scheme.
Rep. Ratcliffe, after making this false argument of Republicans yields back.
Mr. Taylor agreed.
I get the point, however, the hold that President Trump put on military aid, meant, the Ukraine would be weaker militarily.
Rep. Wenstrup failed to mention the ‘hold’ was not in the best interest of Ukraine, fighting Russian aggression in eastern Ukraine; therefore, his statement defending Trump is unsound.
The fact that Trump provided the Ukraine with Javelins and Obama did not; in no way, exculpates him from the crime of bribery.
Trump freezing the military aid, unless you make an announcement as I requested, to damage the reputation of my political rival, to help me be reelected in the 2020—and hiding that phone call and blocking the House investigation: that is commission of a series of crimes.
Rep. Wenstrup said, I would like to yield the rest of my time to Mr. Ratcliffe: he accuses Chairman Schiff of lying -- by claiming: Trump pressured Zelensky to do something to get aid – and, he said, what did he do? He did nothing and the aid was released. This is a phony argument, because, when Trump’s bribery scheme was discovered, the military aid was released without Zelensky making a public announcement. It was members of Congress and senior officials in OMB, NSC, and DOD who were outraged and advised it be released. Trump was opposed to releasing the aid until he got caught in a bribery-scheme.
Rep. Ratcliffe, after making this false argument of Republicans yields back.
Ms. Speier (D-CA) you are recognized for 5 minutes: she said, I would like to start with Mr. Kent, you said in your testimony that, in mid-August, it became clear to me, that Giuliani’s efforts to gin up a political motivated investigation were now infecting U.S. engagement with Ukraine leveraging President Zelensky’s desire for a White House meeting. Mr. Kent did you actually write a memo documenting your concerns that there was effort underway to pressure Ukraine to open an investigation to benefit President Trump?
Mr. Kent, yes ma’am, I wrote a memo to the file on August 16th.
Ms. Speier, We do not have access, do we?
Mr. Kent, I submitted it to the State Department.
The reason: the House of Representatives does not have access: Trump is blocking access to these documents.
Republicans are ignoring that – fact.
Rep. Speier mentioned a $325,000 donation to a pro-Trump super PAC by Russian born Lev Parnas through a shell company, GEP, he set up with Igor Furman; probably, a contribution from a Ukrainian oligarch, looking for a favor from Trump.
Trump denies knowing the two men; despite, photos of them together; one, with Parnas at the White House.
Lev Parnas and Igor Furman have been arrested and charged with making an illegal campaign donations and are set to go to trial.
Rep. Speier yields the rest of her time to Chairman Schiff, he said, I yield now to Mr. Stewart.
Mr. Kent, yes ma’am, I wrote a memo to the file on August 16th.
Ms. Speier, We do not have access, do we?
Mr. Kent, I submitted it to the State Department.
The reason: the House of Representatives does not have access: Trump is blocking access to these documents.
Republicans are ignoring that – fact.
Rep. Speier mentioned a $325,000 donation to a pro-Trump super PAC by Russian born Lev Parnas through a shell company, GEP, he set up with Igor Furman; probably, a contribution from a Ukrainian oligarch, looking for a favor from Trump.
Trump denies knowing the two men; despite, photos of them together; one, with Parnas at the White House.
Lev Parnas and Igor Furman have been arrested and charged with making an illegal campaign donations and are set to go to trial.
Rep. Speier yields the rest of her time to Chairman Schiff, he said, I yield now to Mr. Stewart.
Mr. Stewart (R-Utah) says, the American people have been lied to about the impeachment: claiming: there was quid pro quo [dirt for aid].
Listen, it is not the Democrats that are liars, it is President Trump and Republicans on the panel defending him.
Rep. Stewart makes a least six false statements:
1. The testimony of Kent and Taylor are opinions.
2. The Democrats’ case is entirely based on this one transcript, one phone call, one sentence.
3. It so weak, that you have to lie and exaggerate to impeach and remove this president, you got a problem.
4. The American people have been lied to again and again [by Democrats].
5. Quid pro quo is meaningless.
6. There is zero evidence of bribery, extortion, cover up, obstruction, or anything like that.
Rep. Stewart has got a problem: these are all lies.
I would like to put in evidence four senior officers: Sondland, Taylor, Vindman, and Morrison that admitted, there was quid pro quo—plus, acting chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney.
Quid pro quo is not meaningless: it means to give something in exchange for something else.
1. When, President Trump promise a White House meeting in exchange for Zelensky, president of the Ukraine, digging up dirt on the Bidens: that is bribery—an impeachable crime.
2. When, you make a threat to hurt someone, if, they don’t do what you want; for example, by holding back military aid needed to fight armed Russian aggression in exchange for Zelensky making a corruption investigation into Bidens-Burisma, helping Trump’s reelection: that is worse—extortion.
Both Taylor and Kent testified the ‘hold’ would weaken the Ukraine on the battlefield—something Putin—wanted.
Mr. Taylor, as charge d’affaires in Kiev, said, he learnt from others President Trump demanded Zelensky make this public announcement himself in exchange for releasing the military aid and a White House meeting.
Mr. Steward was sitting here, when Mr. Taylor made that statement and Mr. Kent backed him up; how, would he, living in Utah, know better, than two career diplomats, who had firsthand knowledge of these affairs. Mr. Kent said, “This work gave me a front row seat.”
To say there is no evidence is stupid.
Rep. Steward made one more mistake: that financial aid to Ukraine has to be certified; therefore, Trump has a right to withhold it on that basis.
Mr. Kent, it was certified.
He said, I’m going to yield the rest of my time to Mr. Jordan, the go-to GOP attack dog. He said, 18 seconds, you’re going to let that go.
Rep. Steward, in that case, I yield back.
This is the second half
Mr. Quigley (D-IL) asked Kent and Taylor, were you told by the State Department not to testify? Both said, yes and that they were subpoenaed.
He mentioned that Mulvaney, Eisenberg, Ellis, Bolton, more than a dozen witnesses, and other documents were being blocked by the White House, and said, if, Republicans have problem with hearsay, the Trump administration should release this first hand evidence.
And, Rep. Quigley asks were any of you involved in the efforts to arrange for Zelensky to open and investigation into the Biden and Burisma that Trump requested in his July phone call?
Mr. Kent, No, and I never would.
Mr. Taylor, No sir.
Rep. Quigley presented two texts on the screen of Aug. 10, 2019, of a conversation between Kurt Volker and Andriy Yermak that indicates they were setting up a date for President Zelensky to make a public announcement and what should be included.
Rep. Quigley then ask Kent, is that what Trump was referring to his July 25th phone call?
Mr. Kent, they appear to be the same, as well as the media campaign initiated by Giuliani.
That is clear and solid evidence: that the Trump administration was involved in carrying out a bribery scheme.
Volker – a special envoy to the Ukraine.
Yermak – a senior advisor to Zelensky.
The hold on military aid was put in place first—then came the request! Make the public announcement. That is extortion.
Republicans say, there is no connection. That is nonsense: that is adding 2+2=2. Democrats have come up with the correct answer: 4. Trump’s irregular team: Volker, perhaps unwittingly; Sondland, and Rudy Giuliani made the connection – this for that.
Trump’s minions does his dirty work.
He mentioned that Mulvaney, Eisenberg, Ellis, Bolton, more than a dozen witnesses, and other documents were being blocked by the White House, and said, if, Republicans have problem with hearsay, the Trump administration should release this first hand evidence.
And, Rep. Quigley asks were any of you involved in the efforts to arrange for Zelensky to open and investigation into the Biden and Burisma that Trump requested in his July phone call?
Mr. Kent, No, and I never would.
Mr. Taylor, No sir.
Rep. Quigley presented two texts on the screen of Aug. 10, 2019, of a conversation between Kurt Volker and Andriy Yermak that indicates they were setting up a date for President Zelensky to make a public announcement and what should be included.
Rep. Quigley then ask Kent, is that what Trump was referring to his July 25th phone call?
Mr. Kent, they appear to be the same, as well as the media campaign initiated by Giuliani.
That is clear and solid evidence: that the Trump administration was involved in carrying out a bribery scheme.
Volker – a special envoy to the Ukraine.
Yermak – a senior advisor to Zelensky.
The hold on military aid was put in place first—then came the request! Make the public announcement. That is extortion.
Republicans say, there is no connection. That is nonsense: that is adding 2+2=2. Democrats have come up with the correct answer: 4. Trump’s irregular team: Volker, perhaps unwittingly; Sondland, and Rudy Giuliani made the connection – this for that.
Trump’s minions does his dirty work.
Chairman: Representative Stefanik (R-NY) be recognized: she begins her 2-point defense of President Trump:
1. Ukraine received the aid
2. There was no investigation into Biden
Listen, I tell you again why that is not a valid defense; because, Trump’s bribery scheme was intercepted and dismantled before consummation. She is looking at only 2 parts of this high crime and drawing a conclusion: you need to look at all of the relevant facts —the Whole Picture.
Rep. Stefanik stated that Mr. Kent in his testimony stated that the Orange Revolution in 2004 and Ukrainian Revolution in 2014 were against a pro-Soviet-kleptocratic government in Ukraine: Is that your testimony?
Mr. Kent, it remains so.
In April, 2019, Zelensky, was elected president and he promised to root out the corruption, reform the judicial system, and end the war in Donbas.
What Rep. Stefanik is driving at: what was wrong with Trump asking for a corruption probe; however, there are two types:
One: instigated by Ukrainian government—into itself.
Two: an investigation imposed on Ukraine by Trump.
Rep. Stefanik stated that Mr. Kent also mentioned Burisma, a natural gas producer, which had been investigated for tax violations and the embezzlement of millions of dollars of state funds by the owner, Mykola Zlochevsky. And, she reasoned, what is wrong with President Trump wanting to investigate Hunter Biden who sat on the board. Here is the difference: the theft took place before Biden sat on the board.
And, he never lived in the Ukraine, and…
….he had nothing to do with the theft.
The investigation Trump wanted was into his political rival, not to recover stolen Ukrainian assets, but to help his reelection in 2020—and not through regular channels--but, through irregular: the three amigos, and Giuliani, his personal lawyer, and his two associates: Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, who assisting the Trump illegal scheme.
When, Trump’s secret bribery scheme was discovered by Congress on Sept. 9th, the military aid was release on Sept. 11th, and President Zelensky was no longer required to make the Biden investigation. The probe initiated by Pelosi, Speaker of the House, is a constitutional process taken to investigate Trump’s plot to coerce the president of Ukraine to make the announcement of opening a Biden investigation of his political rival, in exchange for releasing military aid approved by Congress. This House impeaching hearing makes that evidence public.
Rep. Stefanik—instead of asking the two witnesses relevant questions, decided Trump was innocent based on 2 facts.
And, she yielded back her time.
1. Ukraine received the aid
2. There was no investigation into Biden
Listen, I tell you again why that is not a valid defense; because, Trump’s bribery scheme was intercepted and dismantled before consummation. She is looking at only 2 parts of this high crime and drawing a conclusion: you need to look at all of the relevant facts —the Whole Picture.
Rep. Stefanik stated that Mr. Kent in his testimony stated that the Orange Revolution in 2004 and Ukrainian Revolution in 2014 were against a pro-Soviet-kleptocratic government in Ukraine: Is that your testimony?
Mr. Kent, it remains so.
In April, 2019, Zelensky, was elected president and he promised to root out the corruption, reform the judicial system, and end the war in Donbas.
What Rep. Stefanik is driving at: what was wrong with Trump asking for a corruption probe; however, there are two types:
One: instigated by Ukrainian government—into itself.
Two: an investigation imposed on Ukraine by Trump.
Rep. Stefanik stated that Mr. Kent also mentioned Burisma, a natural gas producer, which had been investigated for tax violations and the embezzlement of millions of dollars of state funds by the owner, Mykola Zlochevsky. And, she reasoned, what is wrong with President Trump wanting to investigate Hunter Biden who sat on the board. Here is the difference: the theft took place before Biden sat on the board.
And, he never lived in the Ukraine, and…
….he had nothing to do with the theft.
The investigation Trump wanted was into his political rival, not to recover stolen Ukrainian assets, but to help his reelection in 2020—and not through regular channels--but, through irregular: the three amigos, and Giuliani, his personal lawyer, and his two associates: Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, who assisting the Trump illegal scheme.
When, Trump’s secret bribery scheme was discovered by Congress on Sept. 9th, the military aid was release on Sept. 11th, and President Zelensky was no longer required to make the Biden investigation. The probe initiated by Pelosi, Speaker of the House, is a constitutional process taken to investigate Trump’s plot to coerce the president of Ukraine to make the announcement of opening a Biden investigation of his political rival, in exchange for releasing military aid approved by Congress. This House impeaching hearing makes that evidence public.
Rep. Stefanik—instead of asking the two witnesses relevant questions, decided Trump was innocent based on 2 facts.
And, she yielded back her time.
Mr. Hurt (R-TX): he said, there is a lot talk about Rudy Giuliani, who he is was, who he was meeting, do we know or have idea of the Ukrainian officials that he was meeting with over of last couple of years?
Taylor, I don’t sir?
Rep. Hurt, have you had any Ukrainian officials call you after a meeting with Rudy Giuliani concerned about the context of that conversation?
Taylor, Yes, Mr. Yermak has expressed concern about his interactions with Giuliani.
Rep. Hurt, and, I believe that was about in late August, is that correct?
Mr. Taylor, there were meetings and also phone calls.
I don’t know if Rep. Hurt knows it, he just made the case for the Democrats, proof Trump’s lawyer was pushing his personal agenda.
He, probably, expected a different answer.
And, he asked, have we seen this anti-corrupt statement?
Mr. Kent, are you referring to the statement that being negotiated between Kurt Volker, Gordon Sondland, and Andriy Yermak?
Rep. Hurt, yes.
Mr. Kent, that was not an anti-corruption statement, sir.
Rep. Hurt, What was the statement?
Mr. Kent, I think if you go back to, uh, the back and forth, what thoughts that were shared by Kurt Volker, they share a draft with Giuliani and Rudy Giuliani said it would not be acceptable if it didn’t mention: Biden-Burisma in 2016.
I think he meant – Biden-Burisma and the 2016 [election].
And, according to House testimony of Laura Cooper, Defense Department deputy assistance secretary for Russia, Ukraine and Eurasia, -- President Trump wanted Ukraine in that Zelensky statement to commit to the prosecution of any individual involved in election meddling.
There is number of things wrong with that demand:
1. He is using the office of president to force Ukraine to take vengeance against individuals who preferred Clinton over him by holding back aid.
2. He is demanding the Ukraine to meddle into the US 2020 election to get US Aid. That is the same thing.
3. He is two-faced—a crime, if you do it to me—no crime, if I do it to ex-VP Joe Biden, the frontrunner.
4. Individuals have a right to express their opinions and knowledge about candidates running for office in their country and foreign countries.
5. There is a different between individuals and governments that authorize and finance their securities services to interfere in other nations’ political elections to influence outcomes.
6. Does Trump want to prosecute individuals or the Ukraine for meddling in the 2016 US elections? Individuals have a right to express their opinions: domestic and international.
7. Trump asked Zelensky to prosecute individuals in the Ukraine for meddling in the 2016 US election, because they preferred Clinton—on the other hand, he did not ask Putin to prosecute individuals in Russia for meddling in our 2016 elections, favoring him.
8. Trump does not believe Russia interfered in our 2016 election, contrary to our Intelligent Agencies; because, Putin said, he did not—yet, he believes the Ukraine did, which is a debunked conspiracy theory.
9. Trump is a Soviet-type oligarch-president who will lie and break the law to win, regardless, who he hurts.
Rep. Hurt said, but, that statement was never agreed to or issued by Ukrainian officials, is that correct?
Mr. Kent, no statement of that sort was issued, correct.
Again, Rep. Hurt makes the case for the Democrats: Trump’s lawyer was attempting to extort dirt for aid from the President of the Ukraine, who desperately needed it to fight the armed Russian incursion into Donbas, the eastern region of the Ukraine.
The fact, that the public announcement was never made and the military aid was release, does not mean: there is no crime, as Republicans argue.
I would like to interject here—what Kurt Volker testified to: he said, Yermak balked at the inclusion of the “two key items,” Biden/Burisma and 2016 election meddling, in President Zelensky’s investigation announcement. And, therefore, he said, it was “shelved.” He said, the Ukraine did not want to get involved in US politics.
Notwithstanding, President Trump continued to press for Zelensky to make the “two-key items” announcement until it blew up in his face by the whistleblower’s “urgent” and “credible” complaint to the IGIC.
It was an attempt to commit bribery-extortion by Trump of a foreign leader that was discovered and aborted by US authorities.
Rep. Hurt, after failing to make a single valid point in defense of President Trump ‑‑ yielded back Mr. Chairman.
Taylor, I don’t sir?
Rep. Hurt, have you had any Ukrainian officials call you after a meeting with Rudy Giuliani concerned about the context of that conversation?
Taylor, Yes, Mr. Yermak has expressed concern about his interactions with Giuliani.
Rep. Hurt, and, I believe that was about in late August, is that correct?
Mr. Taylor, there were meetings and also phone calls.
I don’t know if Rep. Hurt knows it, he just made the case for the Democrats, proof Trump’s lawyer was pushing his personal agenda.
He, probably, expected a different answer.
And, he asked, have we seen this anti-corrupt statement?
Mr. Kent, are you referring to the statement that being negotiated between Kurt Volker, Gordon Sondland, and Andriy Yermak?
Rep. Hurt, yes.
Mr. Kent, that was not an anti-corruption statement, sir.
Rep. Hurt, What was the statement?
Mr. Kent, I think if you go back to, uh, the back and forth, what thoughts that were shared by Kurt Volker, they share a draft with Giuliani and Rudy Giuliani said it would not be acceptable if it didn’t mention: Biden-Burisma in 2016.
I think he meant – Biden-Burisma and the 2016 [election].
And, according to House testimony of Laura Cooper, Defense Department deputy assistance secretary for Russia, Ukraine and Eurasia, -- President Trump wanted Ukraine in that Zelensky statement to commit to the prosecution of any individual involved in election meddling.
There is number of things wrong with that demand:
1. He is using the office of president to force Ukraine to take vengeance against individuals who preferred Clinton over him by holding back aid.
2. He is demanding the Ukraine to meddle into the US 2020 election to get US Aid. That is the same thing.
3. He is two-faced—a crime, if you do it to me—no crime, if I do it to ex-VP Joe Biden, the frontrunner.
4. Individuals have a right to express their opinions and knowledge about candidates running for office in their country and foreign countries.
5. There is a different between individuals and governments that authorize and finance their securities services to interfere in other nations’ political elections to influence outcomes.
6. Does Trump want to prosecute individuals or the Ukraine for meddling in the 2016 US elections? Individuals have a right to express their opinions: domestic and international.
7. Trump asked Zelensky to prosecute individuals in the Ukraine for meddling in the 2016 US election, because they preferred Clinton—on the other hand, he did not ask Putin to prosecute individuals in Russia for meddling in our 2016 elections, favoring him.
8. Trump does not believe Russia interfered in our 2016 election, contrary to our Intelligent Agencies; because, Putin said, he did not—yet, he believes the Ukraine did, which is a debunked conspiracy theory.
9. Trump is a Soviet-type oligarch-president who will lie and break the law to win, regardless, who he hurts.
Rep. Hurt said, but, that statement was never agreed to or issued by Ukrainian officials, is that correct?
Mr. Kent, no statement of that sort was issued, correct.
Again, Rep. Hurt makes the case for the Democrats: Trump’s lawyer was attempting to extort dirt for aid from the President of the Ukraine, who desperately needed it to fight the armed Russian incursion into Donbas, the eastern region of the Ukraine.
The fact, that the public announcement was never made and the military aid was release, does not mean: there is no crime, as Republicans argue.
I would like to interject here—what Kurt Volker testified to: he said, Yermak balked at the inclusion of the “two key items,” Biden/Burisma and 2016 election meddling, in President Zelensky’s investigation announcement. And, therefore, he said, it was “shelved.” He said, the Ukraine did not want to get involved in US politics.
Notwithstanding, President Trump continued to press for Zelensky to make the “two-key items” announcement until it blew up in his face by the whistleblower’s “urgent” and “credible” complaint to the IGIC.
It was an attempt to commit bribery-extortion by Trump of a foreign leader that was discovered and aborted by US authorities.
Rep. Hurt, after failing to make a single valid point in defense of President Trump ‑‑ yielded back Mr. Chairman.
Gentlemen, Mr. Castro (D-CA); he said, listening to all the evidence here and everything I heard and read on this investigation: it seems to me the president of the US either committed bribery or extortion of a foreign official or attempted bribery or extortion.
Rep. Castro asked what would have happened if the military aid was cut off?
Mr. Taylor, the Ukrainians would have been much weaker in negotiating with the Russians and much weaker on the battlefield.
Rep. Castro said, the Russians could have pounced.
Taylor, the Russians could have taken advantage.
Castro said, so, Trump has a desperate man on the phone and President Zelensky; begrudgingly, agreed to make that announcement that Trump wanted: Do you know why it did not happen?
Mr. Taylor, it was released on September 11th.
Rep. Castro said, is it possible that the White House released that hold because a whistleblower had; basically, turned this in?
Mr. Taylor, I don’t know sir.
I do, that is true. When John Bolton, Trump’s national security adviser, heard about it, he called it a “drug deal”, and three top officials: Bolton, Esper, and Pence tried to convince Trump to release the aid. He refused; nevertheless, it was released two days after members of Congress and the DOD heard of the scheme and were outraged.
Trump got caught trying to bribe Zelensky.
And, top US officials broke it up.
Rep. Castro said, ambassadors: is attempted murder [or robbery] a crime?
Mr. Taylor answered, yes it is.
Rep. Castro, then, asked: is attempted bribery a crime?
Mr. Taylor said, I don’t know.
He lacked moral courage.
You would not expect that from a rifle commander.
He was not asked, Did Trump commit it?
Everybody knows attempted bribery is also a crime.
Rep. Castro asked is that right what Trump did?
Mr. Kent said, I will repeat, I think on principle, regardless of the country, whether it is the Ukraine, the US, or any country, the facts of law, criminal nexus should drive investigations by law enforcement officials and it is not the role of politicians to be involved in directing the judicial system of their own country and other countries.
Rep. Castro said, I’ll yield back.
Rep. Castro asked what would have happened if the military aid was cut off?
Mr. Taylor, the Ukrainians would have been much weaker in negotiating with the Russians and much weaker on the battlefield.
Rep. Castro said, the Russians could have pounced.
Taylor, the Russians could have taken advantage.
Castro said, so, Trump has a desperate man on the phone and President Zelensky; begrudgingly, agreed to make that announcement that Trump wanted: Do you know why it did not happen?
Mr. Taylor, it was released on September 11th.
Rep. Castro said, is it possible that the White House released that hold because a whistleblower had; basically, turned this in?
Mr. Taylor, I don’t know sir.
I do, that is true. When John Bolton, Trump’s national security adviser, heard about it, he called it a “drug deal”, and three top officials: Bolton, Esper, and Pence tried to convince Trump to release the aid. He refused; nevertheless, it was released two days after members of Congress and the DOD heard of the scheme and were outraged.
Trump got caught trying to bribe Zelensky.
And, top US officials broke it up.
Rep. Castro said, ambassadors: is attempted murder [or robbery] a crime?
Mr. Taylor answered, yes it is.
Rep. Castro, then, asked: is attempted bribery a crime?
Mr. Taylor said, I don’t know.
He lacked moral courage.
You would not expect that from a rifle commander.
He was not asked, Did Trump commit it?
Everybody knows attempted bribery is also a crime.
Rep. Castro asked is that right what Trump did?
Mr. Kent said, I will repeat, I think on principle, regardless of the country, whether it is the Ukraine, the US, or any country, the facts of law, criminal nexus should drive investigations by law enforcement officials and it is not the role of politicians to be involved in directing the judicial system of their own country and other countries.
Rep. Castro said, I’ll yield back.
Mr. Ratcliffe (R-TX): he starts by saying the president has the constitutional authority to remove ambassadors.
Mr. Kent, that is right.
Rep. Ratcliffe said, Democrats don’t understand that.
That is a false statement.
Rep. Ratcliffe states Democrats want to impeach the president, because, he removed the Ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch.
That is also false statement: what the Democrats are saying: it should be done for U.S. and Ukraine national interests: not done for personal interests. She stood in the way of Trump bribing the president of Ukraine.
That is not the Democrats’ basis for the impeachment—only a facet.
The Articles of Impeachment have—yet, to be written.
So, like Trump, he lies and misrepresents facts.
Most of Ratcliffe’s statements were either false or irrelevant and waste of the House Intel Committee’s time.
Rep. Ratcliffe also broke the House rules, by asking for a colloquy with the Chairman and was told by Schiff to direct his questions to the two witnesses.
He continued to argue and was told to suspend.
After some further argument, Rep. Ratcliffe, said, I’ll yield back.
Mr. Kent, that is right.
Rep. Ratcliffe said, Democrats don’t understand that.
That is a false statement.
Rep. Ratcliffe states Democrats want to impeach the president, because, he removed the Ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch.
That is also false statement: what the Democrats are saying: it should be done for U.S. and Ukraine national interests: not done for personal interests. She stood in the way of Trump bribing the president of Ukraine.
That is not the Democrats’ basis for the impeachment—only a facet.
The Articles of Impeachment have—yet, to be written.
So, like Trump, he lies and misrepresents facts.
Most of Ratcliffe’s statements were either false or irrelevant and waste of the House Intel Committee’s time.
Rep. Ratcliffe also broke the House rules, by asking for a colloquy with the Chairman and was told by Schiff to direct his questions to the two witnesses.
He continued to argue and was told to suspend.
After some further argument, Rep. Ratcliffe, said, I’ll yield back.
Mr. Heck (D-WA): he said, Mr. Kent, some people have suggested the real reason that President Trump’s pressure campaign on the Ukraine was to root out corruption in Ukraine. I’ve gone back and read the memorandum of the call, two or three times, actually, and I don’t recall a single instance where the President ever used the word corruption, nor the word corrupt, I know in answer to the Chairman’s opening question you indicated you have gone back and read it about a month ago, do you recall the President in that July 25th phone call with President Zelensky ever uttering the word—corrupt or corruption?
Mr. Kent, I don’t recall, but it would be a matter of record, now, that it has been release.
Rep. Heck, as a matter of record, he didn’t, but he managed to find time to mention his potential political rival in 2020. You also answered a question in response to Mr. Himes: you’ve been working on the issue of corruption, literally, for decades, I thank you for that on behalf of the American people, and indeed on Oct. 15th, you testified about long standing US policy meant to combat corruption in the Ukraine, champing by people; such as, former Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch, but Mr. Kent is it not true that rather than fighting corruption, in general, in Ukraine, that what President Trump actually did was, unceremoniously, recall and remove Ambassador Yovanovitch from her post in Ukraine?
Mr. Kent, I would say first of all, as I repeated before, the President has the right to recall ambassadors, it remains a matter of policy of the United States towards Ukraine to help them overcome a legacy of corruption and creating new institutions and much of which we have been discussing today, which involved an irregular channel, was a request that went against US policy and that would have undermined the rule of law and our long standing policy goals in Ukraine as in other countries in the post-Soviet space.
Rep. Heck, those policies, which were, indeed, championed by Ambassador Yovanovitch. You also testified on Oct. 15, in the deposition about fundamental reforms necessary for Ukraine to fight corruption and to transform the country, and you cited the importance of reforming certain institutions; notably, the security service in the prosecutor general’s office. Wasn’t the investigation of President Trump’s political opponents a part of those necessary reforms, was it on that list of yours, sir or indeed, on any list?
Mr. Kent, no, they weren’t.
Rep. Heck mentioned; historically, that prosecutors misused investigations to damage their political opponents in post-Soviet Ukraine.
That is what Trump did in the U.S.—and it’s plain to see.
Finally, Rep. Heck said, for as long as I can remember, US policies have been predicated on advancing principled interests of democratic values; notably, freedom of speech, press, mass assembly, religion, free fair and open elections, and the rule of law.
And, it is plain to see: Trump does not like to be subject to the rule of law, calling this impeachment hearing—a sham.
And, he does not believe in fair and open elections—asking a foreign leader to make a public announcement to get US aid—that would have sullied the reputation of his 2020 main political rival.
Rep. Heck said, anyone looking at the facts can see what happen was an abuse of power, unethical, and just plain wrong.
Two weeks after Trump’s bribery scheme was made public: Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, called for an impeachment inquiry, she said, “The actions of the Trump presidency revealed dishonorable facts of the president’s betrayal of his oath of office, betrayal of national security and betrayal of the integrity of our elections,” and she said, “The president must be held accountable. No one is above the law.”
President Trump called Speaker of the House, “crazy Nancy, she’s as crazy as a bed bug”. That shows, the stress of the impeachment has caused him to disintegrate into a psychopath -- out of touch with reality.
Rep. Heck, I yield back Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Kent, I don’t recall, but it would be a matter of record, now, that it has been release.
Rep. Heck, as a matter of record, he didn’t, but he managed to find time to mention his potential political rival in 2020. You also answered a question in response to Mr. Himes: you’ve been working on the issue of corruption, literally, for decades, I thank you for that on behalf of the American people, and indeed on Oct. 15th, you testified about long standing US policy meant to combat corruption in the Ukraine, champing by people; such as, former Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch, but Mr. Kent is it not true that rather than fighting corruption, in general, in Ukraine, that what President Trump actually did was, unceremoniously, recall and remove Ambassador Yovanovitch from her post in Ukraine?
Mr. Kent, I would say first of all, as I repeated before, the President has the right to recall ambassadors, it remains a matter of policy of the United States towards Ukraine to help them overcome a legacy of corruption and creating new institutions and much of which we have been discussing today, which involved an irregular channel, was a request that went against US policy and that would have undermined the rule of law and our long standing policy goals in Ukraine as in other countries in the post-Soviet space.
Rep. Heck, those policies, which were, indeed, championed by Ambassador Yovanovitch. You also testified on Oct. 15, in the deposition about fundamental reforms necessary for Ukraine to fight corruption and to transform the country, and you cited the importance of reforming certain institutions; notably, the security service in the prosecutor general’s office. Wasn’t the investigation of President Trump’s political opponents a part of those necessary reforms, was it on that list of yours, sir or indeed, on any list?
Mr. Kent, no, they weren’t.
Rep. Heck mentioned; historically, that prosecutors misused investigations to damage their political opponents in post-Soviet Ukraine.
That is what Trump did in the U.S.—and it’s plain to see.
Finally, Rep. Heck said, for as long as I can remember, US policies have been predicated on advancing principled interests of democratic values; notably, freedom of speech, press, mass assembly, religion, free fair and open elections, and the rule of law.
And, it is plain to see: Trump does not like to be subject to the rule of law, calling this impeachment hearing—a sham.
And, he does not believe in fair and open elections—asking a foreign leader to make a public announcement to get US aid—that would have sullied the reputation of his 2020 main political rival.
Rep. Heck said, anyone looking at the facts can see what happen was an abuse of power, unethical, and just plain wrong.
Two weeks after Trump’s bribery scheme was made public: Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, called for an impeachment inquiry, she said, “The actions of the Trump presidency revealed dishonorable facts of the president’s betrayal of his oath of office, betrayal of national security and betrayal of the integrity of our elections,” and she said, “The president must be held accountable. No one is above the law.”
President Trump called Speaker of the House, “crazy Nancy, she’s as crazy as a bed bug”. That shows, the stress of the impeachment has caused him to disintegrate into a psychopath -- out of touch with reality.
Rep. Heck, I yield back Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Jordan (R-OH) got his facts wrong: he said, Ernsten & Young said, the Ukraine is one of the three most corrupt countries on the planet: that is false, there are 179 countries: the Ukraine is 129th, 50 are more corrupt.
What he failed to mention: Trump is the most corrupt president in US history and President Zelenky is Saint compared to Trump.
He stated, the reason for the hold on military aid, Trump wanted to investigate the Ukraine and President Zelensky for corruption to see if, he was the real guy, before we send our hard earned money. He has got that all wrong.
And, he says, the whole inquire is a sham. Who put this knucklehead on the House Intelligence Committee, replacing Rick Crawford? He is a bold and mean attack dog, but not intelligent [or right].
Jordan said, US senators, Ambassador Bolton, VP Pence all became convinced [after 55 days] that Zelensky was in fact worth the risk, he was in fact legit, he was the real deal and made real change, and guess what, they told the president he is a reformer –release the money –and that’s exactly what President Trump did.
That is completely inaccurate. The hold was kept secret from July 18 until September 9, when, Congress was informed of the whistleblower’s complaint and 2 days later after alarmed government officials determined it was illegal – demanded release of the aid.
Pressure caused Trump to capitulate.
Rep. Jordan says, Democrats are going to parade more witnesses in here, like we have seen today, that are going to say, so and so said such and such to so and so, and therefore, we got to impeach the president.
He is calling the testimony of Taylor and Kent-- unreliable.
And Jordan said, we can get more specific:
Ambassador Sondland said in his deposition, where he said Ambassador Taylor recalled Mr. Morrison told ambassador Taylor that I told Mr. Morrison that I conveyed this message to Mr. Yermak on Sept. 1, 2019, in connection with Vice President Pence’s visit to Warsaw and had a meeting with President Zelensky….and, if you can follow that -- that is the Democrats’ plan on why they want to impeach the President.
Mockery of the testimony of career diplomats, shows how far Republicans will go to defend President Trump, their corrupt party leader. The House Democrats, presently, are conducting an investigation to determine whether impeachment of the President is justified. They have not yet made that determination--yet.
That will happen at the end of the House probe.
He should get all the facts before commenting….
Rep. Jordan spent his 5 minutes attacking Bill Taylor, who has direct knowledge of these events, chargé d'affaire to the Ukraine. He, apparently, does not know this is a House impeachment inquiry in progress and it is his job to ask questions; instead, attacking witnesses and giving us his premature opinions. Everything Rep. Jordan said was wrong -- basing his conclusions on selected‑isolated facts and ignored the main body of relevant facts. It was Jim Jordan that did not have a clear understanding of the facts, not Bill Taylor.
Jordan says, “no matter how many witnesses they bring in here, 4 facts will not change, have not changed, will never change.”
1. The July 25th phone call shows no linkage to dollars and the investigations of Burisma and the Bidens.
That is true, but he is looking at only one link in a underground chain of events that are related to July 25th phone call.
2. President Trump and President Zelensky both said, on the call, there was no linkage, pressure, no pushing….
That is true, but, there was linkage, pressure, and pushing at other times and places related to the July 25th phone call that both Trump and Zelensky knew about, but, did not mention and reporters did not ask, because, that part of Trump’s extortion plot was hidden at time.
The House probe later discovered them.
3. The Ukrainians did not take any specific actions relative to the investigations to get the money released.
That is true, because, Trump’s extortion scheme blew up before it was consummated.
Basing Trump’s defense of these three facts is faulty reasoning, because, they are not the whole picture, and; because. President Zelensky later reported to the Time Magazine and the Associated Press on December 2, 2019, that Trump attempted to extort him.
4. They would not bring in the witnesses that started it all, the whistleblower. Jordan is in for another knockout.
What he failed to mention: Trump is the most corrupt president in US history and President Zelenky is Saint compared to Trump.
He stated, the reason for the hold on military aid, Trump wanted to investigate the Ukraine and President Zelensky for corruption to see if, he was the real guy, before we send our hard earned money. He has got that all wrong.
And, he says, the whole inquire is a sham. Who put this knucklehead on the House Intelligence Committee, replacing Rick Crawford? He is a bold and mean attack dog, but not intelligent [or right].
Jordan said, US senators, Ambassador Bolton, VP Pence all became convinced [after 55 days] that Zelensky was in fact worth the risk, he was in fact legit, he was the real deal and made real change, and guess what, they told the president he is a reformer –release the money –and that’s exactly what President Trump did.
That is completely inaccurate. The hold was kept secret from July 18 until September 9, when, Congress was informed of the whistleblower’s complaint and 2 days later after alarmed government officials determined it was illegal – demanded release of the aid.
Pressure caused Trump to capitulate.
Rep. Jordan says, Democrats are going to parade more witnesses in here, like we have seen today, that are going to say, so and so said such and such to so and so, and therefore, we got to impeach the president.
He is calling the testimony of Taylor and Kent-- unreliable.
And Jordan said, we can get more specific:
Ambassador Sondland said in his deposition, where he said Ambassador Taylor recalled Mr. Morrison told ambassador Taylor that I told Mr. Morrison that I conveyed this message to Mr. Yermak on Sept. 1, 2019, in connection with Vice President Pence’s visit to Warsaw and had a meeting with President Zelensky….and, if you can follow that -- that is the Democrats’ plan on why they want to impeach the President.
Mockery of the testimony of career diplomats, shows how far Republicans will go to defend President Trump, their corrupt party leader. The House Democrats, presently, are conducting an investigation to determine whether impeachment of the President is justified. They have not yet made that determination--yet.
That will happen at the end of the House probe.
He should get all the facts before commenting….
Rep. Jordan spent his 5 minutes attacking Bill Taylor, who has direct knowledge of these events, chargé d'affaire to the Ukraine. He, apparently, does not know this is a House impeachment inquiry in progress and it is his job to ask questions; instead, attacking witnesses and giving us his premature opinions. Everything Rep. Jordan said was wrong -- basing his conclusions on selected‑isolated facts and ignored the main body of relevant facts. It was Jim Jordan that did not have a clear understanding of the facts, not Bill Taylor.
Jordan says, “no matter how many witnesses they bring in here, 4 facts will not change, have not changed, will never change.”
1. The July 25th phone call shows no linkage to dollars and the investigations of Burisma and the Bidens.
That is true, but he is looking at only one link in a underground chain of events that are related to July 25th phone call.
2. President Trump and President Zelensky both said, on the call, there was no linkage, pressure, no pushing….
That is true, but, there was linkage, pressure, and pushing at other times and places related to the July 25th phone call that both Trump and Zelensky knew about, but, did not mention and reporters did not ask, because, that part of Trump’s extortion plot was hidden at time.
The House probe later discovered them.
3. The Ukrainians did not take any specific actions relative to the investigations to get the money released.
That is true, because, Trump’s extortion scheme blew up before it was consummated.
Basing Trump’s defense of these three facts is faulty reasoning, because, they are not the whole picture, and; because. President Zelensky later reported to the Time Magazine and the Associated Press on December 2, 2019, that Trump attempted to extort him.
4. They would not bring in the witnesses that started it all, the whistleblower. Jordan is in for another knockout.
Mr. Welch (D-VT), he said, I say to my colleagues, I would be glad to have the person that started it all come in and testify: President Trump is welcome to take a seat right there! [the room burst into laughter].
The truth is so -- obvious.
Rep. Welch said, it is not a question about the enormous power that the President has, but, in this case, an abuse of that power.
And, he said, yes, the President has the powers to remove ambassadors and change Ukrainian policies, but there are limits.
He can’t use this power for illegal purposes. The law forbids anyone of us here sitting on the dais to seek foreign assistance in our campaign.
He says, Trump can go after Joe Biden in his political campaign, but can’t seek assistance from a foreign leader. That is a line he can’t cross.
He said, Mueller reported on July 24, that it was Russia, that meddled in our 2016 election and Trump, the next day, ignores the law, and asks president Zelensky to investigate the Bidens.
Trump is abnormally paranoid. That can be seen by his reaction to the conspiracy theory, he believes the Ukraine meddled on behalf of Hillary in the presidential election of 2016, or pretends to [without proof].
Trump; now, appears to be looking for revenge. Rep. Nunes said in a prior statement, he did not like the Ukraine and did not want give aid.
We don’t know the depths of Trump’s—deviousness. What did President Trump have in mind, if, Zelensky refused to do the favor –he wanted?
Stop military aid to the Ukraine— permanently.
And, that could have happened.
U.S. Ambassador to the EU, Sondland, prompted by a statement by Mr. Taylor, made a call to President Trump on Sept. 7th and asked, what he wanted? And Trump said, if President Zelensky does not clear things up (i.e., make this public announcement [himself]), security assistance would be at a stalemate.
So, there was quid pro quo [this for that].
Fortunately, his bribery-extortion scheme was discovered and halted by top U.S. officials before it could do immense damage to the Ukraine.
Rep. Welch asked, is it alright for the president to use congressionally approved foreign aid, as lever, to get a personal advantage, something in his interest and not the public interest.
Mr. Taylor said, that should not be the case -- Mr. Welch.
Rep. Welch yielded back.
The truth is so -- obvious.
Rep. Welch said, it is not a question about the enormous power that the President has, but, in this case, an abuse of that power.
And, he said, yes, the President has the powers to remove ambassadors and change Ukrainian policies, but there are limits.
He can’t use this power for illegal purposes. The law forbids anyone of us here sitting on the dais to seek foreign assistance in our campaign.
He says, Trump can go after Joe Biden in his political campaign, but can’t seek assistance from a foreign leader. That is a line he can’t cross.
He said, Mueller reported on July 24, that it was Russia, that meddled in our 2016 election and Trump, the next day, ignores the law, and asks president Zelensky to investigate the Bidens.
Trump is abnormally paranoid. That can be seen by his reaction to the conspiracy theory, he believes the Ukraine meddled on behalf of Hillary in the presidential election of 2016, or pretends to [without proof].
Trump; now, appears to be looking for revenge. Rep. Nunes said in a prior statement, he did not like the Ukraine and did not want give aid.
We don’t know the depths of Trump’s—deviousness. What did President Trump have in mind, if, Zelensky refused to do the favor –he wanted?
Stop military aid to the Ukraine— permanently.
And, that could have happened.
U.S. Ambassador to the EU, Sondland, prompted by a statement by Mr. Taylor, made a call to President Trump on Sept. 7th and asked, what he wanted? And Trump said, if President Zelensky does not clear things up (i.e., make this public announcement [himself]), security assistance would be at a stalemate.
So, there was quid pro quo [this for that].
Fortunately, his bribery-extortion scheme was discovered and halted by top U.S. officials before it could do immense damage to the Ukraine.
Rep. Welch asked, is it alright for the president to use congressionally approved foreign aid, as lever, to get a personal advantage, something in his interest and not the public interest.
Mr. Taylor said, that should not be the case -- Mr. Welch.
Rep. Welch yielded back.
Mr. Maloney (D-NY) will be recognized for 5 minutes: he pointed out that Taylor graduated from West Point and was a rifle commander in Vietnam. Rep. Maloney said, let’s go to the time, when you went to the frontline; where, the Ukrainians were fighting to halt the Russian invasion in Donbas. Did it concern you that Trump put a hold on military assistance? Taylor said, it did. Maloney asked, what did you do? Taylor said, he sent a cable to the Secretary of State, Pompeo. Maloney asked, what did you say? Mr. Taylor said it was a classified cable, but, he said, how important the military aid was to the Ukraine and our security and to block it would be folly. Maloney asked, did you get a reply? He said no. When, a top official in the government turn a blind eye to crimes being committed by the U.S. President that is neglect of duty and shows he is part of Trump’s Ukrainian bribery plot.
He was also in on Trump’s 25th call with Zelensky, who said, he wanted to buy more Javelins and Trump said, "I would like you to do us a favor though" and assigned Giuliani, his attorney, to act as an US official and he said nothing. It took a whistleblower, a man with a conscience, to expose it. It was not a favor for the US—it was for Trump.
One last thing, Rep. Maloney said remember [Mr. Taylor] you recalled, on Sept 1, Vice President Pence met with President Zelensky at Warsaw and he immediately raised concerned about the hold on military assistance. And Pence said, he would talk to President Trump about it.
Rep. Maloney asked, what did VP Pence do?
Mr. Taylor said, he does not know -- and Mr. Kent said, to the best of his understanding: he was an advocate for the release of military assistance.
However, VP Pence refuses House request for documents related to the Trump-Zelensky incident.
Rep. Maloney yields back.
I would like to bring up here: one of the main arguments of Republicans; particularly, Nunes, Jordan, Radcliffe, and Steward: Zelensky was unaware of the hold and under no coercion to make an investigation. That contradicts what Mr. Taylor, the top diplomat in Kiev, just said and that is confirmed by the testimony of Ms. Jennifer Williams and Timothy Morrison, aids to the V.P., who were also present at the meeting at the September 1 Vice President Pence meeting with President Zelensky at Warsaw.
And, on Sept. 5, Senators Chris Murphy and Ron Johnson met with President Zelensky at Kiev and his first question was about the hold on security assistance -- and this was reported by acting Ambassador Taylor at his disposition who was also at the meeting.
So, this main argument of Republicans, Zelensky never knew of the hold is false. They are simply liars or they don’t know all the facts, and therefore, their defense of Trump on this point is groundless.
And, what, if anything, VP Pence told President Trump: we learn, according to Ambassador Sondland’s phone call on Sept 9, he did not change his mind, he insisted: Zelensky must make the public announcement. It was two days, later, heat from top U.S. officials, exposure of his scheme in the press, Senator Durbin’s amendment threat, and the start of three House investigations: Trump capitulated, lifted the hold.
He was also in on Trump’s 25th call with Zelensky, who said, he wanted to buy more Javelins and Trump said, "I would like you to do us a favor though" and assigned Giuliani, his attorney, to act as an US official and he said nothing. It took a whistleblower, a man with a conscience, to expose it. It was not a favor for the US—it was for Trump.
One last thing, Rep. Maloney said remember [Mr. Taylor] you recalled, on Sept 1, Vice President Pence met with President Zelensky at Warsaw and he immediately raised concerned about the hold on military assistance. And Pence said, he would talk to President Trump about it.
Rep. Maloney asked, what did VP Pence do?
Mr. Taylor said, he does not know -- and Mr. Kent said, to the best of his understanding: he was an advocate for the release of military assistance.
However, VP Pence refuses House request for documents related to the Trump-Zelensky incident.
Rep. Maloney yields back.
I would like to bring up here: one of the main arguments of Republicans; particularly, Nunes, Jordan, Radcliffe, and Steward: Zelensky was unaware of the hold and under no coercion to make an investigation. That contradicts what Mr. Taylor, the top diplomat in Kiev, just said and that is confirmed by the testimony of Ms. Jennifer Williams and Timothy Morrison, aids to the V.P., who were also present at the meeting at the September 1 Vice President Pence meeting with President Zelensky at Warsaw.
And, on Sept. 5, Senators Chris Murphy and Ron Johnson met with President Zelensky at Kiev and his first question was about the hold on security assistance -- and this was reported by acting Ambassador Taylor at his disposition who was also at the meeting.
So, this main argument of Republicans, Zelensky never knew of the hold is false. They are simply liars or they don’t know all the facts, and therefore, their defense of Trump on this point is groundless.
And, what, if anything, VP Pence told President Trump: we learn, according to Ambassador Sondland’s phone call on Sept 9, he did not change his mind, he insisted: Zelensky must make the public announcement. It was two days, later, heat from top U.S. officials, exposure of his scheme in the press, Senator Durbin’s amendment threat, and the start of three House investigations: Trump capitulated, lifted the hold.
Chairman recognizes Ms. Demings (D-FL): she said the Intel Committee’s investigation has uncovered a web of shadow diplomacy, engaged in and executed by several State Department officials and the president’s personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, and ultimately directed by President Trump, we have heard of several ways of describing this shady-shadow operation, shadow diplomacy, rouge backchannel. And, she said, Ambassador Taylor, you have described what you have encountered as the top diplomat on the ground in Ukraine and I quote a “highly irregular informal channel of US policy making” and you testified that the channel included Ambassador Volker, Sondland, Secretary Perry, and as you later learned -- the President’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani. Is that correct?
Mr. Taylor, Yes ma’am.
Rep. Demings said, both of you grew seriously concern when you realized the interest of this irregular channel diverged from official U.S. policy and interest. Was Mr. Giuliani used in promoting U.S. National interest or policy in Ukraine—Ambassador?
Mr.Taylor, I don’t think so, ma’am.
Mr. Kent, no, he was not.
Rep. Demings, what interest do you think he was promoting Mr. Kent?
Mr. Kent, I believe he was looking to dig up political dirt against a potential rival in the next election cycle.
Rep. Demings, Ambassador Taylor, what interests do you believe he was promoting?
Mr. Taylor, I agree with Kent.
Rep. Demings said, you are aware that the State Department has refused to release your notes to Congress, despite a subpoena?
Mr. Taylor said, yes ma’am.
Rep. Demings yields back.
Mr. Taylor, Yes ma’am.
Rep. Demings said, both of you grew seriously concern when you realized the interest of this irregular channel diverged from official U.S. policy and interest. Was Mr. Giuliani used in promoting U.S. National interest or policy in Ukraine—Ambassador?
Mr.Taylor, I don’t think so, ma’am.
Mr. Kent, no, he was not.
Rep. Demings, what interest do you think he was promoting Mr. Kent?
Mr. Kent, I believe he was looking to dig up political dirt against a potential rival in the next election cycle.
Rep. Demings, Ambassador Taylor, what interests do you believe he was promoting?
Mr. Taylor, I agree with Kent.
Rep. Demings said, you are aware that the State Department has refused to release your notes to Congress, despite a subpoena?
Mr. Taylor said, yes ma’am.
Rep. Demings yields back.
Krishnamoorthi (D-IL) is recognized: he mentioned Republicans argue: there was no pressure on Ukraine based on Trump’s July 25 phone call: that is a false argument, because they are ignoring other facts: Rep. Krishnamoorthi stated, that in Mr. Taylor’s deposition in October: due to the hold Trump placed on the military aid—Ukrainians became desperate: Isn’t that right?
Mr. Taylor, in August, he said, they were unaware of the hold, they did not know, as far as I am aware, until the end of August, but, when the article came out, the Minister of Defense came to me, I would use the word ‘desperate’ to figure out why the assistance was being held back. He thought, if he went to Washington to talk to you, to talk to the Secretary of Defense, talk to the President, he would be able to find out and be reassured and provided with whatever answer is necessary to have that assistance released, to fight Russian aggression.
So, there was pressure (i.e., extortion): Taylor, the top US. diplomat to the Ukraine, was aware of it, as Krishnamoorthi mentioned, he used the word “concern” 13 times in his opening statement: that lifting the hold was conditioned on political investigations and the Ministry of Defense was aware of it, therefore, President Zelensky was aware of it, which refutes the Republicans argument that he never felt any pressure at any time. That is, absolutely, false. Responding to questions from Associated Press on Dec. 2, 2019, Zelensky said, he only learned after their phone call that the U.S. blocked hundreds of millions of dollars in military aid to the Ukraine.
And he said, Trump should not have blocked aid: "We're at war."
Rep. Krishnamoorthi asked Mr. Taylor, if an infantry commander refuses to follow orders in a battle until he receives a personal benefit, would that been grounds for a court martial?
Mr. Taylor, yes sir.
Rep. Krishnamoorthi yields back.
He was the last member of the Intelligence Committee to speak and Rep. Nunes, the ranking Republican member, and Chairman Schiff made the closing statement.
Mr. Taylor, in August, he said, they were unaware of the hold, they did not know, as far as I am aware, until the end of August, but, when the article came out, the Minister of Defense came to me, I would use the word ‘desperate’ to figure out why the assistance was being held back. He thought, if he went to Washington to talk to you, to talk to the Secretary of Defense, talk to the President, he would be able to find out and be reassured and provided with whatever answer is necessary to have that assistance released, to fight Russian aggression.
So, there was pressure (i.e., extortion): Taylor, the top US. diplomat to the Ukraine, was aware of it, as Krishnamoorthi mentioned, he used the word “concern” 13 times in his opening statement: that lifting the hold was conditioned on political investigations and the Ministry of Defense was aware of it, therefore, President Zelensky was aware of it, which refutes the Republicans argument that he never felt any pressure at any time. That is, absolutely, false. Responding to questions from Associated Press on Dec. 2, 2019, Zelensky said, he only learned after their phone call that the U.S. blocked hundreds of millions of dollars in military aid to the Ukraine.
And he said, Trump should not have blocked aid: "We're at war."
Rep. Krishnamoorthi asked Mr. Taylor, if an infantry commander refuses to follow orders in a battle until he receives a personal benefit, would that been grounds for a court martial?
Mr. Taylor, yes sir.
Rep. Krishnamoorthi yields back.
He was the last member of the Intelligence Committee to speak and Rep. Nunes, the ranking Republican member, and Chairman Schiff made the closing statement.
Rep. Nunes (R-CA), ranking Republican member, said, we should stop holding these hearing until we get answers to three important questions:
No. 1. The relationship with Schiff and the whistleblower. That is not necessary; since, the impeachment of president will not be based on the whistleblower’s identity and who he/she talked to --it will be based on the facts uncovered and verified by House inquiry – trigger by and contained in the whistleblower’s complaint.
No. 2. The full extent of Ukraine’s meddling in the 2016 election. That is a separate issue, it has already been debunked, and it has no bearing on the Trump-Zelensky bribery case.
No. 3. Why did Burisma hired Hunter Biden?
That is a separate issue: Mykola Zlochevsky, the founder of Burisma, says, his hiring was ceremonial. That is not much different than paying Trump for the use of his name—or licensing deals.
I want to clear something up:
President Trump was asked by a reporter: what did you want him [Zelensky] to look into about Biden?
Trump answered, “Look, Biden and his son are stone cold crooked.” That is the words of deceitful liar.
The former prosecutor general of the Ukraine, Yuriy Lutsenko, when asked about Hunter Biden, said, “There was no evidence the former vice president’s son engaged in illegal activity.”
And, he said, there is no reason to probe the Bidens.
And, the new Prosecutor General, Rusian Riaboshapka said, there is no evidence of wrongdoing [by Hunter Biden].
Kurt Volker, special envoy to the Ukraine, said; these Hunter Biden allegations of corruption were incredible—and said he knew Joe Biden for 24 years and he is an honorable man and I hold him in highest regard.
Also, during the 3rd day of the hearing: Jennifer William, aid to VP Pence, and Lt. Col. Vindman, director for European affairs, National Security Council, were asked, by attorney Goldman, if they had any knowledge of wrong-doing by the ex-VP Joe Biden: they answered, no.
So, I wish Republicans would put that false accusation to rest: they did not violate anything based on Ukrainian and US sources. Trump’s request for an investigation of the Bidens is a scam. Rep. Nunes is trying to make Trump’s request for an investigation seem credible and justified. It is not. It is an attempt by Nunes to shift the focus of the impeachable inquiry from Trump to the Bidens.
No. 1. The relationship with Schiff and the whistleblower. That is not necessary; since, the impeachment of president will not be based on the whistleblower’s identity and who he/she talked to --it will be based on the facts uncovered and verified by House inquiry – trigger by and contained in the whistleblower’s complaint.
No. 2. The full extent of Ukraine’s meddling in the 2016 election. That is a separate issue, it has already been debunked, and it has no bearing on the Trump-Zelensky bribery case.
No. 3. Why did Burisma hired Hunter Biden?
That is a separate issue: Mykola Zlochevsky, the founder of Burisma, says, his hiring was ceremonial. That is not much different than paying Trump for the use of his name—or licensing deals.
I want to clear something up:
President Trump was asked by a reporter: what did you want him [Zelensky] to look into about Biden?
Trump answered, “Look, Biden and his son are stone cold crooked.” That is the words of deceitful liar.
The former prosecutor general of the Ukraine, Yuriy Lutsenko, when asked about Hunter Biden, said, “There was no evidence the former vice president’s son engaged in illegal activity.”
And, he said, there is no reason to probe the Bidens.
And, the new Prosecutor General, Rusian Riaboshapka said, there is no evidence of wrongdoing [by Hunter Biden].
Kurt Volker, special envoy to the Ukraine, said; these Hunter Biden allegations of corruption were incredible—and said he knew Joe Biden for 24 years and he is an honorable man and I hold him in highest regard.
Also, during the 3rd day of the hearing: Jennifer William, aid to VP Pence, and Lt. Col. Vindman, director for European affairs, National Security Council, were asked, by attorney Goldman, if they had any knowledge of wrong-doing by the ex-VP Joe Biden: they answered, no.
So, I wish Republicans would put that false accusation to rest: they did not violate anything based on Ukrainian and US sources. Trump’s request for an investigation of the Bidens is a scam. Rep. Nunes is trying to make Trump’s request for an investigation seem credible and justified. It is not. It is an attempt by Nunes to shift the focus of the impeachable inquiry from Trump to the Bidens.
Chairman Schiff thanked the two witnesses, Mr. Taylor and Mr. Kent for testifying and he said the House Intelligence Committee public impeachment hearing showed that President did commit bribery-extortion for his benefit and not in the best interests of the United State or the Ukraine, which is an impeachable crime according to the U.S. Constitution.
And, he attempted to conceal his criminal conduct by covering it up, by defying subpoenas for documents and for his men involved in the bribery scheme to testify.
That is an obstruction of Congress.
It was, abundantly clear, that the Republicans on the panel made a concerted effort to defend their Party Boss, Donald Trump and U.S. President, by making false, insidious, and baseless arguments. In his defense, they excluded culpatory evidence. No one showed a sense of fair mindedness, support for the rule of law that they were elected to uphold: this is the type of political corruption that was rampant in the post-Soviet Ukraine.
CONCLUSION
There was a stark difference demonstrated by Democrats and Republicans at the House Public Impeachment hearings:
Democrats were hearing investigators.
Republicans were hearing saboteurs.
The Republicans began to sabotage the House public hearing right at the start by interrupting Schiff, Chairman of the Intelligence Committee, and Nadler, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, with a barrage of bogus rule challenges and they would raise their voices to make it seem, when a vote was taken—the Republicans won.
Then, during the hearings—rather than ask relevant questions about Trump’s alleged bribery scheme, they focused their attack on discrediting witnesses.
We, know that President Trump and Republicans are corrupt; because, they said, they are not going to look at the public impeachment hearing [or facts]. They have already made up their minds before the House inquiry and the Senate trial. That closed mind behavior is diabolical; particularly, by US congressmen.
They are supposed to protect the people from corrupt, dangerous, and incompetent leaders; like Trump, who breaks the law to the stay in power and is a threat to the rule of law by unlawfully enforcing his agenda on the people.
Republicans don’t---not one voted for the House impeachment inquiry and probably will vote against impeachment in the Senate trial.
Even though, the House of Representatives was hampered by Republicans, it gathered enough evidence to prove Trump tried to bribe the president of the Ukraine, not for the benefit of the US or Ukraine, but to benefit his reelection in 2020.
It consisted of a two month long investigations: first behind closed doors during October, and secondly: public hearings during November.
It took more than 100 hours of deposition testimony from 17 witnesses and that information or evidence gathered was published in the 361-page House Impeachment Inquiry Report dated, December 15, 2019.
Chairman Schiff said, “The impeachment inquiry has found that President Trump, personally and acting through agents within and outside of the U.S. government, solicited the interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, to benefit his reelection,"
It started with the removal career officers and replacing them with his flunkies and by commissioning his attorney, Rudy Giuliani, to act as an US official: creating his self-serving team within the federal government. Next, President Trump put a hold on military aid to the Ukraine without giving a reason. That is a violation of the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, which prohibits the stoppage of funds appropriated by Congress without its consent. The law was designed to keep the president and top officials from cancelling funds approved by Congress for personal reasons. That is; precisely, what Trump did. Next step: his July 25th phone call to Zelensky, a violation of federal finance law by soliciting something of value from a foreign official, an announcement of an investigation of his potential political rival in 2020 for corruption, that would have tarnished his image. It was something of value to Trump, because, he withheld $391 million in US military aid and a While House visit sought by Zelensky, the newly elected President of the Ukraine. Newly released document reveals Senior White House official, Michael Duffey, also sent an email to the DOD to hold any further military assistance to the Ukraine 90 minutes after Trump’s phone call and to keep this information closely held which ties; more directly, the request for a favor to the hold on military aid. Bill Taylor, acting Ambassador to the Ukraine, said, the Ukraine owed the U.S. nothing: it was our strategic partner to repel Russian aggression in the eastern region of the Ukraine. However, President Trump added prerequisites for the Ukraine to get the Aid—open an investigation of a political opponent. That is bribery‑extortion. Somebody in the federal government became aware of this secret plot—and revealed it to the Inspector General: that was the whistleblower. That provoked the consternation of top congressional authorities. And, they forced Trump to release the military aid without his prerequisites. Afterwards, the House of Representative began a formal investigation of that bribery‑extortion scheme. Then, Trump committed more crimes: by telling his men to defy subpoenas and defying subpoenas to turnover relevant documents. That is an abuse of his presidential office and power to carry out these covert and illegal acts. That is also a violation of the public trust and the Oath of Office by swearing to uphold the U.S. Constitution and; thereafter, committing this string of offenses.
The time and effort Trump put into this bribery-extortion scheme that would have jeopardized the sovereignty of the Ukraine, endangered U.S. security, and undermined the integrity of the US presidential election process to benefit his reelection in 2020 shows what a corrupt and tyrannical egomaniac he is.
And, there are other crimes, those in the Mueller Report.
And, those not in the Mueller Report.
Alexander Hamilton explained in the Federalist Papers that a commonly understood crime need not be the basis of impeachment.
If, that be the case; then, President Trump’s 15,400 rated falsehoods in 1,055 days, should be an impeachable high crime.
Another crime: the excessive cost and time Trump spent on vacations at his golf resorts: $123.6 million to Dec. 2, 2019.
Another crime: violations of the emolument clauses.
Another crime: intimidation.
Another crime: usurping Congress’s power of the purse.
Another crime: stealing from the US Treasury [HR-1].
Another crime: Trump’s withdrawal of the US from the Paris Agreement and his anti‑science global warming policies.
There are also other crimes that the DOJ fails to take action on, because it’s their policy not to indict a sitting president.
There is another reason Trump should be removed from office: he appears to be suffering from kind of stress related psychosis -- calling his July 25th call “perfect,” the whistleblower a “fraud”, Chairman Adam Schiff –“a deranged human being” and impeachment is a “dirty” word and he committed “no crime whatsoever” and the impeachment is a “big fat hoax.” If, impeachment is a dirty word, then, there is no remedy to remove a corrupt President. Trump also made a fool out of himself at the NATO summit. The President of France, Emmanuel Macron, said NATO is “brain dead” because of Trump’s lack of leadership.
Fact-checkers said, he made a slew of false claims at the summit and is an embarrassment to the United States.
He was the odd man out….[laughed at]
It is a sign: Trump is a paranoid, narcissistic, psychopath; possibly, suffering from the early stage of dementia, becoming more and more irrational.
He is a danger to the United States.
He should not have control of the levers of power.
He is bound to get worse, not better.
Suggesting, “Why don’t we nuke them [hurricanes]” and spread radioactive rainfall on land masses in path of the hurricanes.
He is not like he says, “really, smart.”
No better example, than his letter to Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi. This mentally disturbed, corrupt to the core, man should not be making policy decisions for the United States, other nations, and the world.
And calling the whistleblower’s complaint “fake news”; more, recently, called the NY Times exposé of taxes: “fake news.”
He used that term 320 times in 2017.
President Trump is a pathological liar and the Attorney General William Barr has not reprimanded him once. He should have taken Trump aside and said, what did you mean, when you said to President Zelensky, “I will tell Rudy and Attorney General Barr to call?”
What are you cooking up? Why have you fused us together? I want nothing to do with your drug deal. Rudy cannot act in a US official capacity. The three amigos [US officials] should not talk to “Rudy” for instructions. Doesn’t NSC speak with Barr, tell him what is going on: they have been informed of his scheme.
Barr should have put the kibosh on this bribery-extortion scheme of a foreign leaders; instead, he has become one of Trump’s supporters.
Trump has turned Washington DC in a cesspool.
When, you add—dementia-paranoia-narcissism and a personality disorder called Il Duce, you get Donald Trump.
Add to that—the element of wealth—and possibly drugs.
He won’t release his tax returns, and,
He won’t release his medical records.
According to a CNN poll in mid-Dec., 45% --less than half of voters support impeachment--- that is Red Flag, signifying Danger.
Voters are either uninformed, misled, stupid—or diehard fans that like some of his policies.
The House of Representatives passed the Articles of Impeachment on Dec. 19th, 2019. Next, it goes to the Senate for trial. In my opinion, the House impeachment inquiry was about 25% to 33% incomplete for two reasons:
1. The Trump administration prevented key witnesses from testifying.
2. The Trump administration blocked the submission of relevant documents requested by the House.
Chairman Adam Schiff said, the reason: it would take 8 months or longer to fight this battle through the courts. That is too long.
It should take max—30 days.
Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell has said, there is zero chance Trump will be impeached in the Senate.
That is true—unless changes are made.
Speaker of the House is right: demanding the trial in the Senate include witnesses and documents subpoenaed by the House during the inquiry and blocked by the Trump administration. There is enough evidence; now, to convict Trump, if you’re fair-minded, but Republicans are not.
The way the law is designed now, the House did not foresee: that Senate members could become such extreme party loyalists – and reject the House request for witnesses and documents during the trial, that made a fair trial impossible.
Republicans are not fair-minded jurors.
One of the things, the newly elected president of the Ukraine, Zelensky, did: was change the constitution to remove absolute immunity of Rada deputies, a source of corruption for 2 decades.
In the US, certain elected officials are above law: that is the same thing, Trump and his top aides.
House committees were unable to enforce subpoenas on them—or too difficult; realistically, that is the same thing. Trump is fighting House subpoenas in court, and will; probably, appeal court rulings and take it to the Supreme Court.
That is going to run out the clock.
Trump, the kingpin, should have been required to testify under oath and cross examined in the Mueller probe and the House probe.
Trump used absolute immunity to hide criminal conduct, even though unlawful, it worked, successfully, hindered Mueller and blocked House subpoenas.
If, the House waits for a Supreme Court ruling, there will not be enough time left, to put him on trial. It is a no-win situation.
Wait for a Supreme Court final ruling—or
Go to trial without relevant witnesses and documents.
Republicans say, Trump demands that Zelensky clean up Ukrainian corruption to get US aid, while blocking investigation into his corruption, the worst in US history.
That is one of his many absurdities.
Trump has brought Soviet-type authoritarianism to the US government: his underhandedness to increase his power and wealth never stops. He wants to be King. He needs to be impeached and removed from office and indicted and prosecuted for the other crimes, he has committed, after he leaves office.
He belongs in prison with Michael Cohen.
Chairman Schiff at the beginning of the House Impeachment Hearing, quoted Benjamin Franklin, when he was asked at the close of the Constitution Convention 1787, Do we have a Republic or Monarchy? He said, “a Republic, if you can keep it.”
Next: Part IV
And, he attempted to conceal his criminal conduct by covering it up, by defying subpoenas for documents and for his men involved in the bribery scheme to testify.
That is an obstruction of Congress.
It was, abundantly clear, that the Republicans on the panel made a concerted effort to defend their Party Boss, Donald Trump and U.S. President, by making false, insidious, and baseless arguments. In his defense, they excluded culpatory evidence. No one showed a sense of fair mindedness, support for the rule of law that they were elected to uphold: this is the type of political corruption that was rampant in the post-Soviet Ukraine.
CONCLUSION
There was a stark difference demonstrated by Democrats and Republicans at the House Public Impeachment hearings:
Democrats were hearing investigators.
Republicans were hearing saboteurs.
The Republicans began to sabotage the House public hearing right at the start by interrupting Schiff, Chairman of the Intelligence Committee, and Nadler, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, with a barrage of bogus rule challenges and they would raise their voices to make it seem, when a vote was taken—the Republicans won.
Then, during the hearings—rather than ask relevant questions about Trump’s alleged bribery scheme, they focused their attack on discrediting witnesses.
We, know that President Trump and Republicans are corrupt; because, they said, they are not going to look at the public impeachment hearing [or facts]. They have already made up their minds before the House inquiry and the Senate trial. That closed mind behavior is diabolical; particularly, by US congressmen.
They are supposed to protect the people from corrupt, dangerous, and incompetent leaders; like Trump, who breaks the law to the stay in power and is a threat to the rule of law by unlawfully enforcing his agenda on the people.
Republicans don’t---not one voted for the House impeachment inquiry and probably will vote against impeachment in the Senate trial.
Even though, the House of Representatives was hampered by Republicans, it gathered enough evidence to prove Trump tried to bribe the president of the Ukraine, not for the benefit of the US or Ukraine, but to benefit his reelection in 2020.
It consisted of a two month long investigations: first behind closed doors during October, and secondly: public hearings during November.
It took more than 100 hours of deposition testimony from 17 witnesses and that information or evidence gathered was published in the 361-page House Impeachment Inquiry Report dated, December 15, 2019.
Chairman Schiff said, “The impeachment inquiry has found that President Trump, personally and acting through agents within and outside of the U.S. government, solicited the interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, to benefit his reelection,"
It started with the removal career officers and replacing them with his flunkies and by commissioning his attorney, Rudy Giuliani, to act as an US official: creating his self-serving team within the federal government. Next, President Trump put a hold on military aid to the Ukraine without giving a reason. That is a violation of the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, which prohibits the stoppage of funds appropriated by Congress without its consent. The law was designed to keep the president and top officials from cancelling funds approved by Congress for personal reasons. That is; precisely, what Trump did. Next step: his July 25th phone call to Zelensky, a violation of federal finance law by soliciting something of value from a foreign official, an announcement of an investigation of his potential political rival in 2020 for corruption, that would have tarnished his image. It was something of value to Trump, because, he withheld $391 million in US military aid and a While House visit sought by Zelensky, the newly elected President of the Ukraine. Newly released document reveals Senior White House official, Michael Duffey, also sent an email to the DOD to hold any further military assistance to the Ukraine 90 minutes after Trump’s phone call and to keep this information closely held which ties; more directly, the request for a favor to the hold on military aid. Bill Taylor, acting Ambassador to the Ukraine, said, the Ukraine owed the U.S. nothing: it was our strategic partner to repel Russian aggression in the eastern region of the Ukraine. However, President Trump added prerequisites for the Ukraine to get the Aid—open an investigation of a political opponent. That is bribery‑extortion. Somebody in the federal government became aware of this secret plot—and revealed it to the Inspector General: that was the whistleblower. That provoked the consternation of top congressional authorities. And, they forced Trump to release the military aid without his prerequisites. Afterwards, the House of Representative began a formal investigation of that bribery‑extortion scheme. Then, Trump committed more crimes: by telling his men to defy subpoenas and defying subpoenas to turnover relevant documents. That is an abuse of his presidential office and power to carry out these covert and illegal acts. That is also a violation of the public trust and the Oath of Office by swearing to uphold the U.S. Constitution and; thereafter, committing this string of offenses.
The time and effort Trump put into this bribery-extortion scheme that would have jeopardized the sovereignty of the Ukraine, endangered U.S. security, and undermined the integrity of the US presidential election process to benefit his reelection in 2020 shows what a corrupt and tyrannical egomaniac he is.
And, there are other crimes, those in the Mueller Report.
And, those not in the Mueller Report.
Alexander Hamilton explained in the Federalist Papers that a commonly understood crime need not be the basis of impeachment.
If, that be the case; then, President Trump’s 15,400 rated falsehoods in 1,055 days, should be an impeachable high crime.
Another crime: the excessive cost and time Trump spent on vacations at his golf resorts: $123.6 million to Dec. 2, 2019.
Another crime: violations of the emolument clauses.
Another crime: intimidation.
Another crime: usurping Congress’s power of the purse.
Another crime: stealing from the US Treasury [HR-1].
Another crime: Trump’s withdrawal of the US from the Paris Agreement and his anti‑science global warming policies.
There are also other crimes that the DOJ fails to take action on, because it’s their policy not to indict a sitting president.
There is another reason Trump should be removed from office: he appears to be suffering from kind of stress related psychosis -- calling his July 25th call “perfect,” the whistleblower a “fraud”, Chairman Adam Schiff –“a deranged human being” and impeachment is a “dirty” word and he committed “no crime whatsoever” and the impeachment is a “big fat hoax.” If, impeachment is a dirty word, then, there is no remedy to remove a corrupt President. Trump also made a fool out of himself at the NATO summit. The President of France, Emmanuel Macron, said NATO is “brain dead” because of Trump’s lack of leadership.
Fact-checkers said, he made a slew of false claims at the summit and is an embarrassment to the United States.
He was the odd man out….[laughed at]
It is a sign: Trump is a paranoid, narcissistic, psychopath; possibly, suffering from the early stage of dementia, becoming more and more irrational.
He is a danger to the United States.
He should not have control of the levers of power.
He is bound to get worse, not better.
Suggesting, “Why don’t we nuke them [hurricanes]” and spread radioactive rainfall on land masses in path of the hurricanes.
He is not like he says, “really, smart.”
No better example, than his letter to Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi. This mentally disturbed, corrupt to the core, man should not be making policy decisions for the United States, other nations, and the world.
And calling the whistleblower’s complaint “fake news”; more, recently, called the NY Times exposé of taxes: “fake news.”
He used that term 320 times in 2017.
President Trump is a pathological liar and the Attorney General William Barr has not reprimanded him once. He should have taken Trump aside and said, what did you mean, when you said to President Zelensky, “I will tell Rudy and Attorney General Barr to call?”
What are you cooking up? Why have you fused us together? I want nothing to do with your drug deal. Rudy cannot act in a US official capacity. The three amigos [US officials] should not talk to “Rudy” for instructions. Doesn’t NSC speak with Barr, tell him what is going on: they have been informed of his scheme.
Barr should have put the kibosh on this bribery-extortion scheme of a foreign leaders; instead, he has become one of Trump’s supporters.
Trump has turned Washington DC in a cesspool.
When, you add—dementia-paranoia-narcissism and a personality disorder called Il Duce, you get Donald Trump.
Add to that—the element of wealth—and possibly drugs.
He won’t release his tax returns, and,
He won’t release his medical records.
According to a CNN poll in mid-Dec., 45% --less than half of voters support impeachment--- that is Red Flag, signifying Danger.
Voters are either uninformed, misled, stupid—or diehard fans that like some of his policies.
The House of Representatives passed the Articles of Impeachment on Dec. 19th, 2019. Next, it goes to the Senate for trial. In my opinion, the House impeachment inquiry was about 25% to 33% incomplete for two reasons:
1. The Trump administration prevented key witnesses from testifying.
2. The Trump administration blocked the submission of relevant documents requested by the House.
Chairman Adam Schiff said, the reason: it would take 8 months or longer to fight this battle through the courts. That is too long.
It should take max—30 days.
Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell has said, there is zero chance Trump will be impeached in the Senate.
That is true—unless changes are made.
Speaker of the House is right: demanding the trial in the Senate include witnesses and documents subpoenaed by the House during the inquiry and blocked by the Trump administration. There is enough evidence; now, to convict Trump, if you’re fair-minded, but Republicans are not.
The way the law is designed now, the House did not foresee: that Senate members could become such extreme party loyalists – and reject the House request for witnesses and documents during the trial, that made a fair trial impossible.
Republicans are not fair-minded jurors.
One of the things, the newly elected president of the Ukraine, Zelensky, did: was change the constitution to remove absolute immunity of Rada deputies, a source of corruption for 2 decades.
In the US, certain elected officials are above law: that is the same thing, Trump and his top aides.
House committees were unable to enforce subpoenas on them—or too difficult; realistically, that is the same thing. Trump is fighting House subpoenas in court, and will; probably, appeal court rulings and take it to the Supreme Court.
That is going to run out the clock.
Trump, the kingpin, should have been required to testify under oath and cross examined in the Mueller probe and the House probe.
Trump used absolute immunity to hide criminal conduct, even though unlawful, it worked, successfully, hindered Mueller and blocked House subpoenas.
If, the House waits for a Supreme Court ruling, there will not be enough time left, to put him on trial. It is a no-win situation.
Wait for a Supreme Court final ruling—or
Go to trial without relevant witnesses and documents.
Republicans say, Trump demands that Zelensky clean up Ukrainian corruption to get US aid, while blocking investigation into his corruption, the worst in US history.
That is one of his many absurdities.
Trump has brought Soviet-type authoritarianism to the US government: his underhandedness to increase his power and wealth never stops. He wants to be King. He needs to be impeached and removed from office and indicted and prosecuted for the other crimes, he has committed, after he leaves office.
He belongs in prison with Michael Cohen.
Chairman Schiff at the beginning of the House Impeachment Hearing, quoted Benjamin Franklin, when he was asked at the close of the Constitution Convention 1787, Do we have a Republic or Monarchy? He said, “a Republic, if you can keep it.”
Next: Part IV